Editing Talk:Consumerium Software License
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 2: | Line 2: | ||
The "free software movement" had it coming, after years of being so ideological and ignoring end user problems. A viable model of software development must replace both free software and open source, which are motivated ''only'' by a concern of the ''developers'' not the users: remaining free to hack anything into unusability. The only way to compete with Microsoft is a better consortium model properly organized without the ideological Cold War of free software vs. open source (which is communism vs. capitalism). At present the only way to compete with Microsoft is to give stuff away free, since MS will happily undercut any other price. What SHOULD be free to the end user is a way to figure out whether they are supporting their own values or not. But no one has a right to features or support, as the death of the [[GPL]] world seems to be proving. | The "free software movement" had it coming, after years of being so ideological and ignoring end user problems. A viable model of software development must replace both free software and open source, which are motivated ''only'' by a concern of the ''developers'' not the users: remaining free to hack anything into unusability. The only way to compete with Microsoft is a better consortium model properly organized without the ideological Cold War of free software vs. open source (which is communism vs. capitalism). At present the only way to compete with Microsoft is to give stuff away free, since MS will happily undercut any other price. What SHOULD be free to the end user is a way to figure out whether they are supporting their own values or not. But no one has a right to features or support, as the death of the [[GPL]] world seems to be proving. | ||