Linux license overhaul--don't hold your breath

TalkBack 31 of 80:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

No. Not okay.

You have made some serious blunders in your arguments.

[quote]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.
[/quote]

Non-sequiteur.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Irrelevant and the premise, "but its effect is not substantial enough to generate a large income," is not verified.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Again, the premise, "If any money is received, it'll be from other services," is false as demonstrated in my talkbacks. A false premise produces a false statement. A program to produce recipies can be supported by sales of the program. Even your conclusion is false on the merits of itself.

[quote]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.)[/quote]

You call it "proof of concept" others call it marketing. WinZip has been doing it for years. WinZip is not GPL'd. Firefox is available for sale, you know. You don't have to download it for free. You can pay for it if you like. Alternatelly, the rendering engine is available for use in your commercial product for a fee. PKZip has done this for years also. PKZip is not GPL'd.

All of those categories require the GPL to prevent other entities from profiting without giving credit or buuying licenses. The GPL is not needed to make software free. You can do that buy not copyrighting the work. By copyrighting the work and releasing it under the GPL, no one can claim credit for your work nor use it commercially without aquiring a license from you. Learn what the GPL is about before making statements like that. In fact, the purity of the software is not protected since anyone can modify it.

[quote]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.[/quote]

You are talking now about patenting ideas and methods. Neither relevent nor true. THe PNG code is protected against alternate methods through copyrights and licenses. Do you know how to read? Once again, Adobe cannot create its own proprietary PNG format that only PS can read/write. If Adobe wants to come up with a new way to represent an image it is free to do so but it cannot come up with a new way to represent a PNG image. Software patents are ridiculous, mostly unenforceable and totally unnecessary.

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

Been there, done that. What's your point? Next.

[quote]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.[/quote]

Have you ever heard the term, "Business model?" Just because you chose to open a gas station that makes money from servicing cars, does not mean that my gas station has to make money the same way. I can cut my profit margin on gas to increase my profit through volume selling. I might cut my profit margin on gas to zero or less and make a killing on overpriced groceries in my convienience store.

The GPL simply does not fit MS' business model but that does not invalidate it. Your beliefs are irrelevant to the facts.

[quote]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?![/quote]

No I am not prepared to argue with MS but then I don't have to. I do not use any of their products. You may want to argue with themm but in the mean time, you are right. GPL reduced MS'' profits from there software since I no longer buy them and have not for quite some time. Still, your argument suffers from non-sequiteur reasoning since the premise has nothing to do with the conclusion and your conclusion is merely an assumption with no basis in reality.

Posted by: The King's Servant   Posted on: 02/14/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use

Alert moderator to an offensive message

Subscribe to this discussion via Email or RSS

SponsoredWhite Papers, Webcasts, and Downloads

• Email Security and Archiving - Clearer in the Cloud Google The time is NOW for businesses and organizations of all sizes to implement ... Download Now
• Building the Virtualized Enterprise with VMware Iinfrastructure VMware VMware virtualization software has been adopted by over 120,000 enterprise ... Download Now
• Three Steps You Need to Know to Stop Data Loss Varonis Sensitive data exposed to misuse or loss... it is the stuff of nightmares ... Download Now