"While you're required to provide the source code to those who pay you to use the software, you don't have to provide it to those who haven't paid."
The issue is that you give away your source code to your clients and competitors, who can then save money by not paying you.
If you don't give them source code, whether by distributing binaries or access to a server which holds the code, you can recoup the investment by ensuring clients only get the benefit of your software when they pay.
It's a similar dilemma in the pharma industry, yes you can free the patents and publish the synthesis method, but who is gonna pay the researchers?
Finally Chrome is more of a byproduct of google's efforts to scrape the internet, turns out that in order to figure out what a website is showing a user you need to pretty much develop a full fledged browser. The goal of google was never to develop a browser.
The issue is that you give away your source code to your clients and competitors, who can then save money by not paying you.
If you don't give them source code, whether by distributing binaries or access to a server which holds the code, you can recoup the investment by ensuring clients only get the benefit of your software when they pay.
It's a similar dilemma in the pharma industry, yes you can free the patents and publish the synthesis method, but who is gonna pay the researchers?
Finally Chrome is more of a byproduct of google's efforts to scrape the internet, turns out that in order to figure out what a website is showing a user you need to pretty much develop a full fledged browser. The goal of google was never to develop a browser.