Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Willem
Date : Mon Sep 26 2005 06:46 pm

Joe wrote:
) "Willem" <willem@stack.nl> wrote in message
) news:slrndjg3sb.e0b.willem@toad.stack.nl...
)> Well then, could you make a case why closed source is better in the bigger
)> picture ?
)
) If closed source were no good, it would have died out.  A lot of free open
) source persists, simply because it is free.  Of course, some of it persists
) because it is better than the dominant closed source alternative.

I could argue that this is precisely because large companies prefer
closed source, because it is of benefit to them as a vendor.  So,
closed source-ness is not the reason, but a side effect.

) At this point, we haven't yet established if 'locking in' isn't a myth
) persisted by the OSS 'community'.

Still, it would be good for a vendor to lock in your users.

In any case, this is a whole separate discussion, and somewhat of
a holy war for some people.

)> Monopolies are also good for the vendors, but it is widely accepted that
)> it is not good for the big picture.  Closed Source could just as well be
)> argued to not be good for the big picture.
)
) Monopolies.  Where did that come from?

From my brain, as the prime example of something that is good for
the vendors but not good for the big picture.

)> Here's a random argument:  Open Source Software means that the vendor has
)> to deliver quality support, because otherwise other companies would step
)> in and deliver better support.  This means that the overall quality of
)> support will be better, which is a good thing.
)
) What I can never understand about this argument is that if the product was
) any good, you wouldn't be able to make any money out of support, period -
) because the user would not have any reason to want support.

That would only apply if a company would hire a software house to write a
piece of software specifically for them.  If multiple companies use the
same piece of software, they will have different requirements, so that
single piece of software has to cater to lots of different users.

More cynically: in real life, most software isn't any good.

) I guess also, it's a weird concept: Let's not make any money out of the
) product itself, let's make money out of _supporting_ the product - we've
) kind of shot ourselves in the foot here, but if we provide the _best_
) support, we can have a monopoly on the _support_, not on the _product_.

You are assuming that support is only necessary if the product is very bad.
I don't see why that is the case.  For one, software needs adapting to
individual requirements, and also to changing requirements.

)> (This is the old 'competition is good, monopoly is bad' argument.)
)>
)> So, why is Closed Source better for the 'Big Picture' than Open Source ?
)
) Closed source has evolved and survived (so far).  It has been able to
) sustain itself.  Open source (with the GNU licence) seeks to change the
) 'eco-system' in a forced, unatural way.

But that's *only* open source with the GNU licence.  I don't particularly
agree with the GNU licence myself.  I did once, but then I got bitten by
it myself.

) It's 'unatural', because it wants ...

So basically, you're not arguing against open source.  You're arguing
against the GPL.  That's something completely different.  In hindsight,
I should probably have read the subject line and known this.

Can you agree that Open Source, in itself, is a good thing ?

In my personal opinion (roughly speaking):
GPL is to Open Source what Communism is to Marxism.


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

.