>Someone else mentioned that open-source software is being written in the
>unis. I'd have to call BS on that. In my experience most of the useful
>open-source software is coming from for-profit companies, or coming from
>people whose for-profit employer encourages them to work on those efforts.
>The people working on open-source software are not doing it out of
>altruism.
thanks for that explanation, matt. i talked with joe for two hours trying to understand why the kernel thingy mattered! i'm still not wrapping my head around why public licensing is what's new. and even if it's new, why on earth is anyone assuming that it can change the world or somehow significantly change capitalism. that's the part that really befuddles me. what about public licensing is an alternative way to organize a system of production, distrubution and consumption? that's my question for those who keep suggesting that open source is so damn revolutionary a model.
also, just one teeny question: who said open source was being developed in unis? some stuff has been developed that way recently -- google, for example. i reread thread and still haven't caught it.
anyway, just curious.
kelley