Tit for tat, I guess. Allow Microsoft to have a monopoly on OSes, but restrict its share in other markets. Make another move to dethrone Google from being the search engine dominator by shaking off its funding. AMD selling processors at competitive prices so it will have a guaranteed market share. The human rat race must go on.
What are you even talking about? For one thing, Open Source is in no way equivalent to non-profit. non-profit would be Richard Stallmans Idealistic world where nobody get's paid to actually create the software, which is so crappy that you have to pay consultants to figure out how to do anything useful with it. Open Source just means that a product has it's source available. It in no way means the product is free- for example, Doom and Quake are Both Open Source, but they aren't free, as are a vast number of other products.
Open source and non-profit. The creative commons license says it all.
Creative Commons is an alternative the the ironically restrictive CopyLeft of GPL. Creative Commons is quite literally more Open than many other Open Source licenses, with the possible exception of the BSD/MIT license. The very reason that the various Creative Commons were created was because the GPL was inherently incompatible with any commercial license at all. This meant that in order for any GPL tool to get any use by companies or in the enterprise, a lot of that companies stuff would have to be GPL'd as well. Creative Commons is really quite similar to the BSD/MIT license, in that it isn't inherently malicious towards commercial software development.
Linux distro developers just sell their ideas to massive companies, etc. etc.
No. a vast majority of Linux developers are in fact being paid to do that by their employers- companies like Red Hat or Novell, who manage their own distros, Canonical, which manages the Ubuntu distro- but most of them are employed in companies that are trying to actually do stuff with Linux, but can't, and have to actually add the required capabilities. Or, in some cases, they want to use some of the code in some way, but because of the GPL have to commit everything that results from changing that code back into the source tree (Microsoft).
I do not think I am confused.
I suppose you believe that Google will never do anything bad because it's in their slogan, too?
But that is redundant. Open Source and non-profit are still entirely separate. Whether Mozilla happens to be or claim to be non-profit is redundant- half of their ventures still require money and a good portion of that comes from google and donations from other companies. The only difference is they don't profit from their ventures. A lot of the contributions made to firefox, like Linux, are in fact done by developers paid to do it; by their respective companies, for a variety of reasons. Usually to fix bugs that they submitted a year before and still aren't fixed, so they say to F with it and assign one of their devs to work on that bugfix. Naturally this is only the case when that bug has a significant impact on the company, but this is a lot more common than one would expect.
