Re: Reason not to go to V6R1

[Scott Klement <midrange-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

There's a big difference between getting the source from a vendor, and 
having a package that's open source.

Typically, an open source package not only gives you the source code, 
but it also gives you the right to derive works from it, to 
re-distribute the original package, and to distribute your derivatives.

(Granted, many open source packages place restrictions on this, such as 
"you must keep the copyright intact" or "your re-distributions must also 
include the source code" or "your re-distributions must be covered by 
the same open source license", etc.)

Commercial software that provides source code typically only lets you 
modify the code for your own internal use, and not to redistribute it.

If the commercial vendor goes out of business, or discontinues the 
product, you can continue to maintain it yourself -- but that may 
quickly become overwhelming to try to keep up with all of the needs of 
the industry while maintaining the software entirely by yourself.  Since 
you can't redistribute it, you can't give it to anyone else who is 
interested.  This eliminates the possibility of having a development 
community or a support community.   (Support community would be 
possible, ONLY IF, you don't modify your source... otherwise, yours is 
different from everyone else's...)


dr2@xxxxxxxx wrote:
> Nah, if I need source, get it up front and be done with it.  Or find
> another vendor.  I've told more than one vendor nyet for refusing to
> deliver current source.