Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Willem
Date : Mon Sep 26 2005 10:50 am

Gerry wrote:
) In article <slrndjf86h.1krl.willem@toad.stack.nl>, willem@stack.nl 
) says...
)> My argument is roughly: if you use any piece of software that is closed
)> source, if would have been better if the vendor had decided to release
)> it under some open source license.
)
) That's like saying it would be better if the vendor had decided to make 
) it free, or to give you money for using it.

I can't argue with that.

) You are ignoring the effect on the vendor.

By the same token, you could say that it is better for a vendor
to produce software that locks in the users most effectively.

The two reasons I can think of off-hand for a venduh to keep his software
closed-source would be to make it more difficult for others to copy what
you've done, and to lock in your buyers to your support only.

Anyway, it comes to a tradeoff between better-for-the-vendor and
better-for-the-buyer.  So yes, I ignore the effect on the vendor
when arguing what's best for the buyer.


SaSW, Willem
-- 
Disclaimer: I am in no way responsible for any of the statements
            made in the above text. For all I know I might be
            drugged or something..
            No I'm not paranoid. You all think I'm paranoid, don't you !
#EOT

.