From owner-freebsd-hackers Fri Jul 21 16:57:18 1995 Return-Path: hackers-owner Received: (from majordom@localhost) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) id QAA00708 for hackers-outgoing; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 16:57:18 -0700 Received: from thing.sunquest.com (thing.Sunquest.COM [149.138.1.11]) by freefall.cdrom.com (8.6.11/8.6.6) with SMTP id QAA00702 for ; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 16:57:16 -0700 From: tony@thing.sunquest.com Received: by thing.sunquest.com; id AA20088; Fri, 21 Jul 1995 16:53:13 -0700 Message-Id: <9507212353.AA20088@thing.sunquest.com> To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailer: Rand MH v6.7 Transport-Options: /nodelivery/return Subject: Re: Support charges ( was Re: SUP target for -STABLE...) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Fri, 21 Jul 95 16:53:49 CST." <199507212253.QAA21981@rocky.sri.MT.net> Date: Fri, 21 Jul 95 16:53:13 -0700 X-Mts: smtp Sender: hackers-owner@freebsd.org Precedence: bulk > subtle difference in my mind. When Cygnus was paid to develop gcc for > Solaris, the members did *not* own the resulting software, but they did > pay for the right of early access and *support* throughout the > development process, along with easy access to the developers. As far as I understand this (from having a friend who works at Cygnus) this is their normal method of operation. You are paying to get work done which would otherwise not normally get done (or not be done to your satisfaction {time/quality}). However, when that work is done, it gets folded back for everyone to use - the buyer does not get sole use of the new code (which would be the antithesis of free software) > > If I am going to pay for a person's livelihood in total or substantially in > > total (ie: thousands of dollars a month) then I own their output. > > Period. If the original poster feels they are paying 'for a person's livelihood in total or substantially' and they want ownership, why not go out and hire someone (even part time) to work on the code. tony