Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : mschaef Date : Thu Sep 22 2005 10:38 am In article <0001HW.BF57BB4400389624F0488550@news.verizon.net>, Randy Howard wrote: >MSCHAEF.COM wrote ... >I don't recall a single person arguing otherwise, so I don't >understand why you are arguing at length against a position that >hasn't been presented, Just tilting at my personal windmills... don't mind me. :-) I'll speak to why I posted what I did, in responses to a couple of your points. >If taking proprietary source against the will of >the author allows someone to make money, with or without >pretending that it's open source in the process, that's not >great. Absolutely. The owner of the code dictates the terms under which it can be used. >> * OSS ensures that software can be developed/maintained as >> long as the market will pay the costs. > >If you have the money, you can ensure that closed source >software will be maintained too. You just may not like the >number. That leads to the same place. For example: even if Microsoft was willing to accept NRE work to support/update VB6, they could still force me to rewrite my (hypothetical) critical line of business app by setting NRE fees high enough. The fact that VB6 is closed source means Microsoft can impose costs on me eventually, either in the form of NRE fees, porting costs to VB.Net, or costs to my business because I can't evolve my VB6 app in the way I'd like. What that situation really means is that I was stupid to pick a closed, one vendor tool to develop my critical app. I should have picked something more open, something over which I had more control _after_ the time I chose to adopt it. To me, that's a key difference. Microsoft will compete for my dollar when I choose to buy Excel. However, once I've bought it, every spreadsheet I develop increases the costs of switching away and, even if I do, Microsoft doesn't care because they already have my money. In other words, competitive forces don't help me when I'm actually using the software. Now, if I buy 'GPLExcel', any time my support vendor stops supporting what I need done, I can take my business to another vendor or a consultant I hire myself. Open source effectively makes competitive forces work for the _user_ of the software rather than the buyer. >> * OSS is particularly beneficial in education, where the >> whole point (almost) is open dissimination of information. > >Seems berkeley figured out a way to handle that a /long/ time >ago. Without restricting people downstream in any meaningful >way, btw. But... the owners of the code should be able to restrict people downstream as they see fit. They can impose the cost of a license fee (MS, etc.), they can impose the cost of enforced openness of derived works(GPL), or they can impose nothing at all, among other alternatives. The key is that the wishes of the owner(s) be honored, and if not honored, enforced. >> * OSS provides creative outlets for lots of otherwise under >> employed developers. > >So does a bicycle, or even podcasting. :-) Yeah, but I'd rather see more code than more podcasts. :-) >> * Because product sales don't drive development, OSS provides >> a good platform for more 'experimental' types of software. > >And that's what the world post-Microsoft really needs, even more >experimental software. LOL. I'd like to find some that is NOT >experimental for a change. Oh wait, I already did. It comes on >this neat little DVD with "OS X" written on it. When I say 'experimental', I don't mean crappy software, I mean different software. Where do you think Squeak, Python, Perl, or Linux would be if they had to start out as $50 boxed software at CompUSA? >> There's nothing (yet) legally that keeps OSS and Closed Source from >> both being viable models. > >True. One is a lot more viable than the other if you want to >actually make a living, but both have their uses. This is a broad generalization, but closed source is more viable if you're trying to make money writing software. Open source can be more viable if you're trying to make money _using_ software. -Mike >No, I think society is going to collapse from the weight of >catering to the "I want what you have because it's not fair" >people. Actually giving debit cards to people that were >recently looting and killing each other is a symptom that our >government isn't even going to try and control the population >anymore, it costs them votes. PS: I thought debit cards were an odd choice of aid too. -- http://www.mschaef.com .