🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <ki36bjINN159@early-bird.think.com> barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
>Think of it as a customer service option.  Some customers want the vendor
>to hold their hand and provide upgrades and enhancements.  Others need the
>freedom to customize and fix problems themselves because they can't be
>assured that the vendor will provide those changes.
>
>Just licensing source code at a reasonable price actually serves that
>purpose.  However, the users should be able to share their fixes and
>enhancements as well, so that each customer that can't wait for the new
>release isn't forced to implement fixes themselves.  In other words, the
>vendors shouldn't have the monopoly on software support.

But wait.  This has nothing to do with GPL.  I have a source license
for Motif ($1K is certainly a reasonable price) and I've shared my fixes
and enhancements with several hundred other source licensees.  There's no
problem there at all.  Of course OSF doesn't always include my fixes in
the next release, but then, neither does GNU.

What's wrong with that model?
-- 
Alfalfa Software, Inc.          |       Poste:  The EMail for Unix
nazgul@alfalfa.com              |       Send Anything... Anywhere
617/497-2922                    |       info@alfalfa.com

I'm not sure which upsets me more: that people are so unwilling to accept
responsibility for their own actions, or that they are so eager to regulate
everyone else's.