Linux license overhaul--don't hold your breath

TalkBack 32 of 80:

Next »

« Previous

• Thread View
• Flat View

On the premises.

Let's take a look.

You wrote and I quoted:
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.

Remember, I agreed with this statement.

I gave the examples to show that such could happen without the GPL, situations in which non-GPL software is produced without direct sales.

1. University research. Direct sales? No. Fits premise that there is such a thing as free software.

2. Utilities and applications distributed without payment. Direct sales? No, by definition. Fits premise.
Granted, I treated the "wouldn't generate substantial income" aspect as self-evident, which is always a dangerous assumption. If you would be prepared to pay a significant amount of money for a program that makes IE pages start maximized, or believe strongly that others would, then you're entitled to disagree. In the absence of facts, we would agree to differ.

3. Programs distributed without payment to people strongly interested in a particular topic, but funded from sales of related items. Direct sales? No, by definition. Fits premise.
Your counter is that another company could sell the program and give the recipes (for example) away. True. However, if you were marketing to people who really like recipes, would you prefer to sell them software or recipes? I'll say my scenario is more likely.
Also, in some cases when a software creator wants to encourage a hobby s/he might provide the software free because sales wouldn't be sufficient to matter. See item #2.
There is also the doing a good deed for good people motive.

4. Proof of concept software; ie, proving the program or some aspect of the program works well. Provided free. Direct sales? No, by definition. Fits premise.

From which I concluded:
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.)

This conclusion still works for me, I admit.

The you make a statement restating your original mistake, as I saw it:

All of those categories require the GPL to prevent other entities from profiting without giving credit or buuying licenses.

Software in every one of those categories can be and has been protected without the GPL.


Then I was pleased to see you agree with me:

The GPL is not needed to make software free.


But unfortunately you were only leaping to a new definition of free, meaning unprotected:

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.

Your assertion contradicts a point I had made, that, much as the GPL is not entirely inconsistent with protections allowing people to make money from programming, it was not the best vehicle for that purpose.
My proof was that companies looking for maximum profits from sales of a specific piece of software rarely use the GPL for that software. I used the example of Microsoft in my prior post. I could also have used Sun and Solaris, with its rejection of the GPL for corporate control and profit. There are other cases.

For some reason, you thought that the fact you didn't use Microsoft products was part of a refutation:

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.

You are saying here that you rejected Microsoft products solely for love of the GPL license. The availability or quality of a replacement product were irrelevant to you.
A brave assertion, but one not likely to be persuasive to others.

More interestingly, you argue:

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.

You could, indeed. Many business models are possible. The one that you chose no doubt aligned with your goals, to make the largest possible profit.

Now, I'll let you be the executive making the decision. If you wanted to make the largest possible profit on all the software you sold and you had no business other than software, would you use the GPL or some other license or be closed-source proprietary?
Be careful, your bonus depends on the answer.

I'm betting you don't choose GPL.


Finally, quietly, if you think that software copyrights are as protective as software patents, then you should consider the issue a bit more.
There is a reason so many companies have sought and are seeking software patents.

Posted by: Anton Philidor   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

• Virtualization: Architectural Considerations And Other Evaluation Criteria VMware Of the many approaches to x86 systems virtualization available in the ... Download Now
• The Impact of Virtualization Software on Operating Environments VMware Today's use of virtualization technology allows IT professionals to ... Download Now
• Why Isn't Server Virtualization Saving Us More? A Few Small Changes May Dramatically Increase Your Efficiency VMware Companies have rapidly adopted server virtualization over the past few ... Download Now