[...]
>In case you're merely unfamiliar with the OSS/FSF position, they claim that
>people should be able to share source code freely once its produced, but
>they have no problem with programmers being paid (perhaps a lot) to write
>the code in the first place. You just shouldn't be able to prevent other
>people from passing around copies of the source code once its written.
>There may be refinements that I'm unaware of, but that's the main thrust.
That's correct. In particular, the FSF promotes a particular model, called "copyleft", based on a license known as GPL (General Public License) that forces distributors of original AND/OR modified versions of the software to maintain the same open-source status. In other words, copyleft is inherited: you may incorporate copylefted code in your applications, and sell them for how much as you like (and can) but you MUST give unrestricted access to the source code of all those applications as well, and under the same terms and conditions. There is also an attenuated alternative license, LGPL, that applies to some software libraries and allows to link them (with certain restrictions) into proprietary, non-OSS applications.
Some people in the OSS community considers this approach unduly restrictive, and likely to discourage any commercial use. They promote some alternative model, such as the "Berkeley" a.k.a. BSD license, that only requires to give credit (e.g., "This application makes use of code partly developed by...") in some prominent place, such as manuals and "About" screen; the similar MIT and W3C licenses; the Mozilla license, applicable to the open-source version of Netscape Communicator; the X.11 license; Larry Wall's "Artistic License"; the Public Domain license ("Take this code and do whatever you like with it, no strings attached") etc. Here is a typical example of exchanges between PD'ists and GPL'ists:
>> Public Domain status denotes more freedom than GPL. It allows all of
>> the freedom of GPL and in addition, it allows the freedom of making
>> proprietary modifications.
>
> Public domain gives person P the ability to make modified versions and
> give users no freedom in using them. The result is that people in
> general have less freedom.
Recently, in the crypto-libertarian circles ("crypto" here stands for "cryptography", not as synonym of "closet"), there has been some discussion about a proposed "cypherpunk license" which could state something like: "This code may be freely used in any application, with the exclusion of those which would provide key escrow facilities or government-controlled backdoors".
In any case, preventing people from making money with the product of their work has never been in the spirit of the open-source movement.
Enzo