Since when does \"open source\" mean \"volunteers only?\"

LinuxWorld seems to think that hiring employees is "antithetical to the open source philosophy":http://www.linuxworld.com.au/index.php/id;1522300181;fp;2;fpid;1. I would think they would know better. Since when is being written and marketed entirely by volunteers a requirement of open source? Is "MySQL":http://www.mysql.com/ not open source software?

It's kind of amusing that many open source advocates fail to realize that open source and capitalism go hand in hand, even while they themselves practice capitalism in their own open source related operations.

Share this

I absolutely agree! But I

I absolutely agree! But I also understand and respect the philosophy of the Apache Software Foundation of staying non-commercial.

I'm a little surprised that

I'm a little surprised that the ASF has officially been 100% volunteer up to this point (of course many Apache hackers do so as part of their day jobs). Other nonprofit open source developers have had paid staff for years, including the Free Software Foundation, Mozilla Foundation and Open Source Development Labs (employer of Linus Torvalds among others). The article cited has little to do with anti-capitalism, much to do with pure ignorance.

Software developers,

Software developers, intelligent as they are, are largely products of the same culture and educational system as the rest of us. Heck, at my old school, CS majors didn't have to take so much as Econ 101. It's no surprise then that they believe that capitalism is all about money, rather than voluntary exchange and association.

Perhaps when universities start teaching courses in open source development (mark my words!), some insightful prof will assign the students to read some Hayek...