Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : mschaef Date : Fri Sep 23 2005 10:22 am In article <0001HW.BF59306F00511954F0407550@news.verizon.net>, Randy Howard wrote: >MSCHAEF.COM wrote ... >> 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. Closed source makes it a lot more difficult to switch vendors, after you've made your initial pick. Once the choice is made, you have to rely on the initial vendor for support. If they don't live up to your expectations... sorry, you lose. > If you're willing to go with Microsoft products, >then you better be willing to accept their terms. Of course. >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 a lack of long-term thinking. Nobody got fired for buying Microsoft, and the negative consequences of a choice to adopt VB2 (for example) weren't felt until 10 years later. >> 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? Oh... of course, given the raging success of commercial/closed-source PC Unix and Smalltalk, how could I have missed that outcome... >> 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. Come to think of it, I'm not so sure I should have written "closed source is more viable if you're trying to make money _writing_ software". It might should've been "closed source is more viable if you're trying to make money _selling_ software." Yeah, in 2005, I like the 'selling' wording better. In 1985, the other phrase might've been more appropriate... -Mike -- http://www.mschaef.com .