Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Randy Howard
Date : Fri Sep 23 2005 10:09 am

MSCHAEF.COM wrote
(in article <LJudnV9uQ_OdX6_eRVn-hA@io.com>):

>>> * 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. 

True, but you also have the right to choose a different vendor. 
It's a decision made by the consumer of the product, as it 
should be.  If you're willing to go with Microsoft products, 
then you better be willing to accept their terms.  What is funny 
to me is hearing people bitch about MS, after buying tons of 
product from them, knowing the entire time what their track 
record is.  It's pretty much the same problem as people that 
build a new house next to an airport, then lobby to have the 
airport moved after they move in, as if they are surprised to 
learn that there is noise around an airport.

>>> * 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. 

I don't disagree, however the point above was open dissemination 
of information, not restriction. 

>>> * 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. :-)

Hmmm.  I've seen far too much 'free code' that wasn't worth 
looking at, and the jury is still out on podcasts.

>> 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?

The venues for a lot of programmers to get wealthy, instead of 
standing around pissed because Microsoft is and they're not?

> 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.

A good point, but given that this is comp.programming and not 
alt.entrepreneur, I'm far more interested in the former.

>> 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.
 
They were not a choice of aid.  They were the first steps in the 
next election campaign. 



-- 
Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR)

.