On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 13:38 -0700, jdow wrote: > From: "Craig White" <craigwhite@xxxxxxxxxxx> > > > On Mon, 2006-06-12 at 12:04 -0700, jdow wrote: > >> From: "Peter Gordon" <peter@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > jdow wrote: > >> > >> >> By the way, has anybody noticed how much a license for Qt costs if > >> >> you want to get PAID for software you right? I might as well simply > >> >> get an MSDN license and develop for XP. Ditto with respect to the > >> >> RHEL costs. They cost MORE than XP in the long run. > >> > Qt and RHEL are both Free/Open-source. You do not necessarily need to > >> > pay any licensing fees to make money on either of them. (Though, for > >> > RHEL, you do have to remove the trademarked artwork and stuff before > >> > you can redistribute it, with or without charging a fee for that > >> > copying.) > >> > >> Reread the Qt license, Peter. If you have developed any software that > Sorry - I left out the word "non-GPL" here ---------------^ > >> uses Qt in any way (ie. for KDE) you MUST purchase a commercial license > >> from TrollTech. And it is NOT cheap if you are a small developer. > > ---- > > I note that you didn't provide a specific reference. > > > > This reference would have me feeling that your commentary is wrong... > > > > http://www.trolltech.com/products/qt/licenses/licensing/opensource > > ---- > "If you wish to use the Qt Open Source Edition, you must contribute all > your source code to the open source community in accordance with the > GPL when your application is distributed." > I can develop. I just cannot place food on my table via that effort. > I an savagely addicted to nutrients such as protein. If you have a > way to do without these please let me know. Well, you were doing OK up to that last paragraph. Again, all it takes is counter examples and there are a plenty. Nobody has mention the synergistic models either. I develop software and contribute to open source projects and my company actively encourages this. Does that mean all of our software is open source? Heaven's no! Even though some of it originated in the mists of open source software over a decade ago (before it was called open source software) we offer commercial software. But we also create and contribute freeware and open source software (and, as others have pointed out to you - GPL and OpenSource are NOT freeware nor are they incompatible with making money - that's a myth promulgated by the proprietary vendors - get over it). The open source software we contribute adds to the entire ecosystem in which our business thrives. So, if I create software we don't want to market (like hard drive encryption scripts or some device driver in the kernel or some contributions to the Samba project), I'm free to offer that in these forums. In exchange, we get software that others are producing the same way. No money changes hands (and no taxes get paid on earned or sales) but we all benefit and it enriches both our ability to create the software we DO market commercially AND it enriches the entire software ecosystem and environment into which we sell. So, yes. We profit very nicely from OpenSource software, indeed. Just for giggles, take a look at the Blender project. That software was developed as a in-house tool. Later, the OpenSource community bought up unlimited source rights and made the whole shebang available. The original company had no interest in marketing that software. But it's release into the OpenSource community opens up whole new development avenues even though the original company has faded away. They couldn't have made money off that software but people are doing plenty fine using that software. Their gaming business (the real business they were in) just didn't pan out for them. They failed in the closed source model of their games, yet their creation lives on and others are making money by using it as a tool. OTOH... It's not my problem to be a welfare agency for programmers who whine about not being able to extort every possible sheckle for every single one of their meaningless lines of code that I can't even inspect. I'll BUY OpenSource software (and I do, frequently) any day over closed source proprietary cruft and probably pay less and have a higher quality, more secure, product. They make money just fine... Plenty of examples out there. > >> (And with the current GPL nonsense I am STRONGLY disinclined to > >> perform any serious development that surrounds me with its level of > >> uncertainty over my legal liabilities for wanting to have bread on > >> my table. So I grit my teeth and develop for Windows.) > > ---- > > GPL isn't nonsense...it's a license. As a software developer, you can > > choose the license that you want for the software you write. Of course, > > you may not borrow other GPL code into the software you write unless you > > release the software as GPL too. Of course, if you choose not to use GPL > > or other 'free' license, you must pay for qt if you use qt to write the > > code. Those are choices that you make. > It is nonsense to me. If I work I expect recompense. Therefore I cannot > develop for GPL. I am perfectly content to sponge off them and use their > work. The other folks seem quite happy to work for ego alone it seems. > Or they are happy to work for large companies like RedHat. I've had my > fill of large companies or even small to medium size companies. It's a license. And you are a troll. I get compensated for all my OpenSource software. I get compensated in all this other OpenSource software that enables me to do my job and enables all of our engineers to be more productive producing what we do market (and we are highly profitable). Just because you are clueless and think we all are just doing this for our ego's is not my problem, it's yours. Others are being compensated very very nicely and RedHat and others are very profitable. Looks like you have a personal problem to me. In a world without OpenSource software, you wouldn't have the markets that exist out there now, to develop for. > > The notion that you 'grit your teeth and develop for Windows' suggests > > that all is not perfect in that environment either. > I'm not saying it is. I am saying I can charge money for the work I > do without having to give it all away to any who ask. I note that some > of my work is "Here's the work product. Here's the source code. Do with > it what you want. You hired me to deliver what I have delivered and you > paid me." Some is product sold one piece at a time in a market small > enough I have to charge more than I'd like for it. Under GPL once I > sold ONE copy I'd never sell another. So I'd have to sell that copy for > a price so high nobody would buy it. > If you want to put money on your table through honest work GPL sucks > dead bunnies through garden hoses. You are obviously a troll. The GPL does not prohibit making money. Get that through your head. In fact, if you BOTHERED to even read the thing it would be quite clear that you can charge what you like. Just like any other license, it just sets the terms, you can set the price if you can get people to buy it. You just can't charge MORE for the source code. Big harry deal. The GPL is NOT about freeware, it's about the availability of the source. Two completely orthogonal issues. What you are trying to argue is that you can't make money unless you can keep that source code secret. Which is pure bull and ignorant (I know guys, in my line of work, who can read binary better than you can read your own sources because they are less distracted and confused by the mistakes you make in your own comments) and the counter examples are laughing at you and proving you wrong. You can go out and sell all the GPL software you like. People do it all the time. You just have to include the source. What's the problem? What's your problem? > {^_^} Mike -- Michael H. Warfield (AI4NB) | (770) 985-6132 | mhw@xxxxxxxxxxxx /\/\|=mhw=|\/\/ | (678) 463-0932 | http://www.wittsend.com/mhw/ NIC whois: MHW9 | An optimist believes we live in the best of all PGP Key: 0xDF1DD471 | possible worlds. A pessimist is sure of it!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
