Sun criticizes popular open-source license

TalkBack 8 of 48:: Next »; « Previous

Thread View
Flat View

Downhill fast!: "And who exactly will be building your house for free?"

No one. I did say that the people who built it would have plenty of profit.

"You can't compare software to anything physical like a house or a car because those items have built-in protection against free copying. Software is unique because it is just information that can be "freely" copied."

Exactly! That is why software is turning into a commodity. It would do so even without FS/OSS because the high profit margins are completely artificial. Think about it for a moment. The cost of product for a software project, after development, is almost nothing! Some software that costs thousands of dollars doesn't even come with printed manuals! The development staff is paid a salary to create an applicaton. Then, the company simply "prints money" every time a customer downloads the product. There has never, ever been a more pofitable product in the history of the world than software. Why? The cost of production is almost $0 but it can be sold over and over again for the same high margin. That is not a sustainable economic model.

"That is why there needs to be some protection for those that spend the time and effort to develop it in the first place."

There is. It's called copyright. You are welcome to use that right how you want.

"Closed software is a business decision and no-one has the right to tell any company they cannot follow that model. Just like closed software developers are not forcing open source developers to charge for they software, open software developers should not demand that closed software goes open."

I agree completely. You created it, you distribute it under the terms you want. Or bury it in your backyard. Or whatever. It's yours.

"Open software is a dumb business model and companies should be allowed to freely pick their development model. Why do you care in the first place? If there is some closed software that you need, then either pay for it or go make your own. No-one forces you either way."

No argument here. I have closed source software on my Linux box I am using to write this. Why? Because there was not a FS/OSS solution available for my needs. And, since the license terms were acceptable to me, I paid for what filled my needs.

"It amazes me that people that like to think of themselves as "smart" can be so short-sighted as you are..."

How am I short-sighted? Whether you or I like or not, FS/OSS will continue to grow and get better and better. I think it is wiser to accept that reality and adapt my carreer to match than fight the rising tide.

"Oh, and btw, I have as much "respect" for the GPL as you have for a EULA. Meaning - NONE!"

You assume too much.

I do believe that some parts of many EULA's would not be enforceable if they were ever challenged. However, I cannot claim support of the GPL without supporting copyright. Therefore, I cannot disregard EULAs since they too depend on copyright. Therefore, on principle, I do not violate anyone's license or EULA. There are many products I will not ever purchase a license for because I do not agree with the license.

"I spit on the GPL, lol! I can only see those people now that sleeps with the GPL under their pillow going into a little red-faced tantrum, but hey, who cares!"

Here is where it really went down hill. I'll stay up here where the air is clear and reasonable.; Posted by: alandd Posted on: 04/05/05 You are currently: a Guest | Members login | Terms of Use