Your commentary is thoughtful but neglects to mention the 800 pound Gorilla in the room. That is the FOSS licensing.
Regardless of how you feel about R. Stallman, His foresight on licensing is what has made FOSS possible and enduring. Understanding the GPL, and derivatives, is the key to answering the questions your post poses.
Below is a post I made in a discussion that might shed some light on my point of view.
Marcush wrote:the GPL allows anyone to use it as long as Source code is availible and they dont make a profit.
markfiend wrote:But for every Red Hat selling Linux-based product, the GPL ensures that there can be a CentOS giving away for free the (almost) exact same system.
markfiend wrote: won't kill FOSS. It's unkillable.
"Free software" does not mean "noncommercial." A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.
Another group has started using the term "open source" to mean something close (but not identical) to "free software." We prefer the term "free software" because, once you have heard that it refers to freedom rather than price, it calls to mind freedom. The word "open" never refers to freedom.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 5 guests