On BNET: Bag a raise in a recession
BNET Business Network:
BNET
TechRepublic
ZDNet
TalkBack 30 of 80:
Next »
« Previous
Of course there are reasons to produce free software.
They share one aspect: little chance of being sold.

As you said,
Most of the "generous" coders made their contributions because no one else would. They gave to the world what no one was willing to pay someone else to do.

So, software will be written by people at universities or otherwise funded to do "pure" research.

Other free software is useful day-by-day, but its effect is not substantial enough to generate a large income. I use a lot of free software in this category. For example, a Flash ad killer, a program assuring IE always opens pages maximized, a RAM manager (for friends), an unzip (pre-XP); why continue?
I am appreciative of the generosity of the programmers, and I use the software believing I am not harming the author or anyone else by doing so.

Other programs will do a lot, but be useful only to a group of hobbyists. If any money is received, it'll be from other services. For example, a program to keep track of recipes will be supported by sales of the recipes.

Other free software is proof of concept. A program like AdAware or Avast! proves its worth on home computers, but the money is made from lkarge sales to commercial and governmental organizations. FireFox is proof of concept, but it's being supported by companies who want minimo.

Not one of these categories of free software requires the GPL. (I believe the purpose of the GPL is to prevent monetary motives from sullying the purity of the software.)

So you're wrong when you say:
Now, let's say that the contribution was never made in the first place then the product would never had been a success then still no one would want to sink money into an unproven product by paying someone to code it. The product never enters into society and society suffers.

Software is going to be produced despite the lack of a ready, paying market.


You then discuss how someone can make money from GPL'ed code by choosing how and when to charge for use of that code. That protects the specific code.
But if you want to protect against alternate approaches, you're going to need a patent. Oh, sorry, open source is hostile to patents.

However, let's postulate that some money might be made from licensing of GPL'ed code, in some way.

Even so, I believe there is no advantage from issuing code under the GPL, compared with other licenses and simple closed source. If there were, even Microsoft would be tempted.
Would you be prepared to argue to Microsoft that they could make larger profits on their software if they released it under the GPL?

Until you can, let's assume the GPL reduces profits from software, okay?!
Posted by: Anton Philidor   Posted on: 02/14/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use
Reply to Story Reply to Message

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

License Overhaul  htotten | 02/14/05
Mono vs Java  Roger Ramjet | 02/14/05
The main reason  htotten | 02/14/05
Huh?  doe_z | 02/14/05
I thought my computer got a critical virus...  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
GPL is a joke.  pa2004 | 02/14/05
You are a total joke  hipparchus2000 | 02/14/05
If it's not broke  Chad_z | 02/14/05
Linux license overhaul--don't hold your breath  Loverock Davidson | 02/14/05
Forced? how so?  theding0 | 02/14/05
Suppose that depends on your level of greed...  shawkins | 02/14/05
Giving away someone else's money.  Anton Philidor | 02/14/05
Got that right  rapson | 02/14/05
Where it counts...  Anton Philidor | 02/14/05
Exactly...  shawkins | 02/14/05
No better than Microsoft, and maybe worse...  Anton Philidor | 02/14/05
You just have to make sure...  Michael Kelly | 02/14/05
I think you are confused  AmusedAtItAll | 02/14/05
Got that right  AmusedAtItAll | 02/14/05
Giving or Greed?  Update victim | 02/14/05
Actually  Linux User 147560 | 02/14/05
f you can't make $$$ off of it it's not worth your time  htotten | 02/14/05
But you can get paid for your work you silly little man wink  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
That is what is good about choices  AmusedAtItAll | 02/14/05
Happens every day Anton....  shawkins | 02/14/05
Also  voska | 02/14/05
I don't enjoy arguing with idealism.  Anton Philidor | 02/14/05
I know this one company that gives away free stuff  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
Have you listened to yourself today?  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
Of course there are reasons to produce free software.  Anton Philidor | 02/14/05
No. Not okay.  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
On the premises.  Anton Philidor | 02/14/05
Anton, try and follow a logical progression.  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
Interesting  NonZealot | 02/14/05
Why do people put words in my mouth, nonZealot?  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
Garbage in - garbage out  AmusedAtItAll | 02/14/05
Your assumptions border on ridiculous  AmusedAtItAll | 02/14/05
Put up or shut up.  seosamh_z | 02/14/05
I have "Put Up" thus won't "shut up"  shawkins | 02/14/05
Don't Like the license? Don't use it!  rpmyers1 | 02/14/05
Easier said than done.  htotten | 02/14/05
Oracle  rpmyers1 | 02/14/05
Giving away code  Letophoro | 02/14/05
Another GPL mythmonger on the loose  AmusedAtItAll | 02/14/05
To avoid being GPL'ed  Anton Philidor | 02/14/05
You're not supposed to  rapson | 02/14/05
Independent software developement is dying field  voska | 02/14/05
Not dead yet....  htotten | 02/14/05
Suppose you license the WinCE code  rpmyers1 | 02/14/05
You are only required to give them  htotten | 02/14/05
code which will contain your IP  rpmyers1 | 02/14/05
It is no different with the GNU GPL  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
The difference is  AmusedAtItAll | 02/14/05
It's not like it's that hard to avoid becoming "contaminated"  Michael Kelly | 02/14/05
DO you even know what they mean by, 'how close'?  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
Sounds like the rewriting of the GPL is unnecessary...  Anton Philidor | 02/14/05
English Lit 101: Ask yourself, "what is the purpose of the story."  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
Correction... just over 20%  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
You look, but not see.  Anton Philidor | 02/14/05
Ie, yie, yie!  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
A license can not subvert the law.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/14/05
Not trying to subvert  Anton Philidor | 02/14/05
That's what I said...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/14/05
Yes, it was, wasn't it.  Anton Philidor | 02/14/05
Message has been deleted.  AmusedAtItAll | 02/14/05
Licensing does that quite regularly  voska | 02/14/05
Perhaps  Update victim | 02/14/05
And perhaps pigs will fly...  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/14/05
I was under the impression...  Michael Kelly | 02/14/05
Not dead wrong, just slightly mistaken.  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
wait and see, no_ax  hipparchus2000 | 02/14/05
Sorry, you are wrong.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/14/05
Sorry, you are slightly off.  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
You need to do some more home work.  No_Ax_to_Grind | 02/15/05
Kill open source?  richdave | 02/14/05
Nope  Linux User 147560 | 02/14/05
RE: Nope  richdave | 02/14/05
But the GPL does allow incorporation into proprietary software.  The King's Servant | 02/14/05
"The snowballing success of Linux ..."  George Mitchell | 02/14/05
What the GPL people are missing  phantom_z | 03/03/05

What do you think?

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

SmartPlanet

Click Here