Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Randy Howard
Date : Fri Aug 26 2005 10:10 pm

Chris Sonnack wrote
(in article <lqrug11kh7bp7ipb9g7s7uk17oi5mm5hl8@4ax.com>):

> Randy Howard writes:
> 
>> I fully support Scott (and anyone else) that wants to use only 
>> open source software, and wants to work only on open source 
>> projects.  To do as they wish with their money and their time is 
>> their right, and who am I to say otherwise?
> 
> Absolutely.
> 
>> I simply ask that they afford those same rights to me and others 
>> instead of trying to dictate behavior onto others.
> 
> I think the problem is the perception that, so long as our way
> obtains, theirs seems destined to fail.  

FWIW, I have worked on open source projects, and don't have a 
problem with them either.  I simply don't see it as an "us 
versus them" problem.  The Stallman crowd wants to make (almost 
literally) a holy war out of it.

I am currently starting on a project which I have wanted to do 
for a long time, and others might benefit from, but I don't 
think will have much commercial value, as it is aimed at a 
fairly narrow market, and I do not have the time or motivation 
to try and make the contacts to do so anyway.  As such, it seems 
to me a perfect fit for being open source, and since it will 
support quite a few platforms (inherently portable), there is an 
even better argument for it, since it might benefit people with 
platforms that I do not have access to currently since they can 
compile it for themselves.

I don't expect to be paid for it, but it will be quite time 
consuming, and I don't want someone else to take it and be paid 
for it at my expense should they decide they can find the proper 
market for it.  So, something like the GPL seems appropriate, 
although looking at the plethora of unique open source licenses 
already in existence, it is a warning that perhaps none of them 
are fully baked.  Also, I have no illusions that any of them, 
including the GPL, afford any real protection in the legal 
sense.  It's more FUD than anything else at this point until 
some meaningful precedents are established.

> At least, that's how it's been so far.

I don't see how open source is failing 'so far', if that was 
your intent.  Both seem to be working out pretty well, and if I 
had to make a prediction, open source is going to eat into 
commercial software development funding quite a bit in the 
future, although I doubt it will replace it entirely anytime in 
the next century, and perhaps never will.  That said, 
outsourcing is doing far more damage to 'first world' 
programmers, but I expect a rebound when the reality that all 
the development projects in the world can not be done remotely 
by script kiddies and those that will use google and steal from 
open source projects to pretend to be competent developers 
backfires.   Yes, I'm painting with a broad brush, and no, I 
don't think all of them do that, but it is quite common, and it 
will have a cost, which will eventually be detected by the bean 
counters and lawyers.   

-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

.