Sachin G Nambiar wrote:
My apologies for ruffling feathers which i evidently have! We disagree on what freedom is here, my point i reiterate, i like the idea of opening up source to the end user because it's the end users right if he has paid for it. But it's also the givers right to restrict me from distributing it. If he says i can i will, but i wont hold a grudge against someone whom i have paid for his software if he does not want me to distribute. Simple!
You are confusing between open software that you publicly distribute/sell to many and customized software made for an individual company. FOS Software created and customized for a company is anyway private and will not be distributed to others. FOS Software sold/distributed openly is open for distribution ( of the code ) by all under the GPL. When you create software you are free to choose the license under which you want to distribute it according to your ideological beliefs. The FOSS ideology believes that since you use FOSS resources for creating your piece, you are duty bound to give back the changes you made *iff_you * distribute it to others. Please note that the FOSS ideology does not work out economically with retail software. FOSS earns big/mega bucks through support and customization.
Others may correct me if I am wrong, but if a developer uses FOSS and modifies it for a customer/company, he is *not* bound to give out the code, even to that customer, unless is demanded under the agreement made between the 2 parties. But if he sells/distributes the modified code openly to anyone, he is bound to reveal the modifications made.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html