Well that's unfortunate. Consider that anybody who is developing open
source software in a cathedral manner is doing a form of delayed open
source. The only difference is that they don't distribute the version
under development. I think people's dislike of delayed Open Source is
the anti-market bias. You see this bias in organ donation as well. It's
illegal to buy an organ from someone in the US, even a kidney. You can
compensate them for their expenses, but nothing more. Why? Anti-market
bias. Same thing for blood. You can get a gift of nominal value, but you
otherwise are making a donation to the Red Cross who, by the way, sells
your blood. Clearly somebody got an exemption.
Another lesson in economics from the Angry Economist, because
understanding economics is like a superpower.
On 10/31/23 15:47, Jim Jagielski wrote:
I agree that delayed FOSS is not open source.
_______________________________________________
The opinions expressed in this email are those of the sender and not
necessarily those of the Open Source Initiative. Official statements by the
Open Source Initiative will be sent from an opensource.org email address.
License-discuss mailing list
License-discuss@lists.opensource.org
http://lists.opensource.org/mailman/listinfo/license-discuss_lists.opensource.org
