[Herring]

> There is lots of free software and lots of for-pay software and some intersection of the two, and the world seems fairly happy with this situation.

Noone was arguing that closed source isn't profitable. "Proprietary software exists" isn't an argument for it's existence & many are unhappy about it.

>

>Often times closed-source software pioneers an approach, makes an initial profit, and proves a demand which open source efforts then methodically fill.

I hope you're not saying OSS isn't innovative.

[KirinDave]

> Noone was arguing that closed source isn't profitable. "Proprietary software exists" isn't an argument for it's existence & many are unhappy about it.

There is definitely slippery-slope rhetoric in the GNU propaganda. Thus far, no slope has existed. That's all I meant to say.

> I hope you're not saying OSS isn't innovative.

I am not saying this, but it is historically true that lots of different fields have been pioneered by closed-source or closed-license-source and that kind of funding. It may shortly thereafter become open-sourced in some fashion, or take longer.

[mojuba]

It is also true historically that people who innovate often are forced to close their code, which otherwise they'd quite possibly be happy to open. It's more often companies that put restrictions rather than engineers themselves.