🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <907621900snz@vision25.demon.co.uk>, Phil Hunt
<philh@vision25.demon.co.uk> writes
>yes, and the reason it is often the best solution is that the Open 
>Source development model often produces good code. The reasons for
>this include: OS software is often looked at by lots of eyeballs,
>thus reducing bugs, and with OS software, you don't have to reinvent 
>the wheel as much as you have to with closed software.

I am not arguing against this. I point this fact out at least 20 times a
week when doing interviews with the UK press and talking to prospective
clients.

What I am asserting is that the author of any given software has teh
right to release source or not as he wishes - it is HIS work after all!

>> For necessary social services, yes. Are you trying to argue that
>> computer software is such a necessary social service?
>
>It is certainly the case that good-quality software is necessary
>to run a modern society. So yes, computer software is a necessary
>social service, and should be funded publicly, for the same reasons
>that education and roads are.

While computers are useful to many aspects of life they are hardly
necessary to society as are education and travel infrastructure. They
are necessary to my being able to earn a decent living as they are almos
the ONLY thing that I am really good at but I do not feel that is
sufficient justification to claim the same for society.
-- 
Jason Clifford
Definite Linux Systems
htp://definite.ukpost.com/