Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Gerry Quinn
Date : Thu Sep 29 2005 10:42 am

In article <slrndjkrep.5h6.willem@toad.stack.nl>, willem@stack.nl 
says...
> Gerry wrote:
> ) But yes, by your standards it's better for the buyer if the vendor is a 
> ) fool who gives his product away even though it harms him.  So long as 
> ) the vendor or another fool like him is still in business, of course.  
> ) If that's no longer the case, the buyer loses too.
> 
> Why does 'Open Source' equate to 'Giving away software' ?
> 
> In any case, you're stating it as an extreme case, as if the benefits
> of enticing buyers by providing the source could never ever outweigh
> the harm it does the vendor.

I'm just pointing out the issues that you are not considering when you 
say that having the source is unequivocally better.  Of course some 
vendors do release source without going out of business.  It depends a 
lot on circumstances.  Providers of development tools and libraries can 
often do that.

> It's not black/white anyway, a vendor could, for example, provide a
> contract whereby he commits to giving his customers the source code
> of a product when he stops providing support for that product.

Yes, in many cases that could be a reasonable way to assuage the fears 
of customers without releasing source.  

OTOH, the IT industry is evolving fast, and yesterday's software is 
often just... yesterday's software.

- Gerry Quinn

.