lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 15:23, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) wrote:
I really do see a need for a GPL-like restriction on creating true
derivative works based on free software created by others. I think the
success of GPLed software in attracting developers shows that people are
more willing to donate their time and effort if they know that someone
else can't simply pick up whatever they have created, re-package it
somehow and sell it.
That makes much more sense in the world of packagers selling
bundles and support than it does to a developer willing to give
his work away. If you give something away, why wouldn't you
want it to be used in every possible way that is useful to
someone (more or less the *bsd philosophy)? On the other
hand if you are selling support of you have a vested interest
in keeping something better than your own package from
becoming easily available.
-- Les Mikesell
Everyone has their own motivations and neither altruism nor direct
compensation are necessarily one of them. I'm a fairly rabid Randian
capitalist so, if I choose to give something away, I'll do it in a way
that is in my own best interest. At the moment, I'm currently between
jobs so I may choose to contribute to a FLOSS project based solely on
the technologies I'll get a chance to learn regardless of the license (I
also won't pretend that my choosing to give something away somehow gives
me an authority to insist that others do the same but that's a different
argument in this thread). On the other hand, lots of people who
contribute to FLOSS seem to be at least partially motivated by altruism
and part of their "charge" for their contribution is to not let someone
else make money by simply repackaging their contribution. I'm just
pointing out that this seems to work by attracting developers to GPLed
projects; not that it is what I would do.
In the for what its worth department, most of my background is in
developing large scale custom software for specific customers or for a
fairly limited clientele. By large, I mean upward of from 50 or 100
developers working over a couple of years to develop say the tracking
software for a radar system, an air defense management system, a combat
logistics management system, delivering maintenance data to airlines,
developing specialized network monitoring software for businesses, etc.
None of this software is mass market and there is generally a *very*
steep learning curve involved in its development. Thus, it would not
get written unless a customer who needed it and who could afford it
funded the effort.
Bringing this post back to the original topic of this thread, I see some
of the folks who complain about the possible viral nature of the GPL
being in this same situation. That is, they bring some very specific,
hard earned knowledge about a problem domain to the table and they want
to be compensated for the effort it took to learn what they have. If
they aren't compensated for this effort then they may choose to take
their knowledge elsewhere where they will be compensated for it or move
to some new endeavor that will better compensate them. Like the above
examples, this may mean that something that would have been available at
a price is, instead, not available at all.
Lots of people see only the "mass market" desktop and consumer markets
for software which gives them a very unrealistic perspective on software
development. By number of users they may have a point but the dollar
value of the custom and limited distribution software market is huge.
This market is highly competitive and competitive advantages lie in the
provider's proprietary code base and the knowledge of the problem space
it represents. Jo and some of the other posters are just the small fish
in this ocean of a market but they face the same competitive pressures.
Trying to force this market to be "open source" won't work and will only
drive people to platforms where they can protect their knowledge investment.
Cheers,
Dave
