qed.

If you want a real nokia device, with all the bells, whistles, and services, you'll have to pay, even if all the software is free and a chinese knock-off could emulate it.

Your point?

The point of the chinese knock-off argument is "why would Nokia, effectively, subsidize those chinese knock-offs by letting them use Maemo, and thus undermine people's incentive to buy Nokia devices with Maemo on them?"

Redhat is not in the same business that Nokia is in. Redhat wants to sell Linux support contracts, which get more market as Linux in general becomes more popular. Nokia wants to sell complete devices (not just hardware). Very different businesses.

>>>> korbé wrote:
>>>> Ok, Architengi,
1) It's possible to make money with completely free (as free beer) and FOSS. (See Red Hat, Linalis, etc...).

>>> end of quote

I just don't want all my work to be open and free and to live from services (technical support or customizations), just because there is not the same money from that, so in the end I will have to look for a job.

All the developers that make their source code public will take the job and the bread from the hand of other developers.
For example: If Office is free, the developers of Quick Office, WordPerfect, even the MS Office will have to find another job.

For humanity's progress I love Open Source, like I would love no patents. But in todays world even the human genes (made by nature) are patented.
Now, the question is, the companies that researched and found that gene usage, can they get the money back from all that investment in research? The same with the code, if it is not closed and everybody has access to its source, will be the same interest for the companies to produce that code?


>>>

>>> ysss wrote:
>>> @korbe: some numbers to backup your claim, please?
it'd be a shame if y'all are wasting all this time and effort to discuss false assumptions of mythical proportions

Yes, this is right. @korbe: do you have numbers or links to bacup your claim? "In computing, the majority of revenues come from: - Services, - Some custom features/sofwares developed for companys."

(for software companies the allegation that it can make money out of In computing, the majority of revenues come from:
"- Sale of hardware."
it is showing korbe does not understand what a software company is. We are not talking here about Apple or Nokia, but about software.)

Just my 2 cents...

Technically you can install and use it without paying, it's the updates and support that you have to get your credit card out for. Plus, you can get all the source RPMs regardless of payment.

You can download the 30-day Evaluation. I would say that's different than "install and use it without paying."

DaveP1, how dare you sir! Injecting more common sense into this thread.

Evaluation refers to the subscription services. The installed system doesn't go poof and turn into a pumpkin when the 30 days expire.

This is academic of course, for unpaid use CentOS is a much saner alternative.

Simple example of something like that is PINE - you can get the source but you can't distribute modified copies. Only patches. I believe Elm is the same. Yet I think most people would consider this open source by any strech of the word. There's probably a few others. Basically anything that might restrict your use to: research only, non-commercial only, no distribution of changed binaries etc... would still be considered open source by most people.

is this thread about open source or about free?

In my eyes thats not 1 on 1.. Why would all open source software have to be free?

But i guess if Nokia would open source everything but use a license that would prohibit commercial use of that software (then you have to by first another license, just like if you would have binaries only) i guess the "true open source" persons here are still complaining right?

My believe is that it could be good to make everything open source. (so that it is easily debugged and patches can be created better) but it doesnt have to be free. I am a developer (for a lot of open source projects, eclipse,apache) and i dont believe that every software needs to be free. Thats why i really dont like and avoid like the plaque GPL...
Thats really a horrible license.

That fails clause 3 of the OSD:
and since there's no payment involved it doesn't apply here anyway.

Debian for example doesn't.