Op 01-04-15 om 08:20 schreef Alessandro Rubini: (..)
> The real problem is we lack sustainable commercial models for free > software. No wonder independent developers are fewer and fewer: those > who are not employed by big corps (G, RH, LF) do free software in > their spare time after earning a living on proprietary software. And > those who insist in remaining independent are starving, unless they > are better at marketing than at developing. > > I welcome this approach, because it's novel and smart. Not "defective > by design", but a simple thing to raise user's attention to a problem. Nice to see that I am not the only one. > Clearly I wouldn't like being forced to rebuild this and that to make > real use of the distro. An howto will do that. > But unless we know what this software package > is, all of this discussion is moot. You can look at it as an "academic discussion", that's what I do. > The only thing I'm sure about is that upstream has a built-in bug, > easily removable. This bug has a novel and interesting reason to > exist, exactly. (...) > I heard about a commercial model of making subtly bugged software and > then sell consultancy to fix those bugs when users hit them. *that* > would be bad to have in debian, but we can't really know if some of > this exists or has been accepted. The upstream author of this > discussion is much more clear and honest, and I respect it. Nice to hear! (...) With regards, Paul van der Vlis. -- Paul van der Vlis Linux systeembeheer, Groningen http://www.vandervlis.nl/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-legal-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/mfgcrh$mdp$1...@ger.gmane.org
