🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <5271@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes:
>In article <26609@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes:
>> The GNU General Public License isn't about profit or sales, it's about
>> the right to give away neat tools to our friends.
>
>No, it's about the right of intellectual property. It uses the laws
>that are based on that right to deny it to other people.
>
>> If you can't see a way to make a profit in that situation,
>> the failure in in your imagination, not in the License.
>
>Look, I want to be able to sell software. I want to be able to buy
>software. This is what the vast majority of the software industry consists
>of: people buying and selling software. Whether it's explicit (say,
>the Lattice C compiler for the Amiga), implicit (say, the engine
>computer in your Pontiac Fiero M4), or whatever. If you can't prevent
>people from copying it and redistributing it you can't recoup your
>development costs.

But in many UNIX installations (where GNU is currently targeted), especially
academic environments, free software (in terms of dollars) is the only real
way that we (the users) can get our hands on code.  Our department doesn't
go out and but software for our UNIX boxes (not completely true, but for the
most part).  Software is gotten from the networks, and installed, and used.
Many things developed here go back to the networks for others to use. No
buying, no selling, just using of code.

>
>Sure, one can be creative and find a way to operate within the scope
>of the GNU copyleft, but by doing that one is putting oneself at a
>competitive disadvantage.
>
>	1. Your competitors can knock off your system.

You then can knock off their systems.  But I for one would much rather use
a system for which I had complete sources.  I intend to buy a box to run
GNU when a kernel becomes available.

>	2. Your would-be customers can become competitors.

I don't want to spend lots of money paying for software.  I'd much rather
spend the extra $$$ for better hardware.  And I generally don't see much
use in writing code that has already been written, unless its something
like GNU where the existing code isn't available.  I'd rather write something
completely new, using your code as a base.  Which now means that I'll 
distribute my code, and let other people get your code and work from the
same place that I did.

>	3. Bad guys can modify the system (hot engine computer
>	   PROMS, for example), making you liable for damages.

If you read the GPL (my copy sits next to me at the moment), the authors
claim that there is no warranty.  If someone modifies your code, and then
bitches at you that it doesn't work, then you shouldn't be held responsible
for it.  I don't know what the current legal status is of things like that,
but since GNU will change many aspects of code availability, the absence
of warranty should be given legal protection as well.  If you want to give
*your* code a warrantee, then you can charge for support,etc.  But if someone
modifies your code, it should be their responsibility not yours.

>	4. People can learn about the internals of your product,
>	   and come to depend on them... making it impossible
>	   to make enhancements in the future (Apple's problems
>	   with people making direct calls to the Apple-II ROMS,
>	   for example).

Then that's their problem.  Microsoft has done many stupid things with
their software, and it has broken under new releases.  So you just blow
it off as the developer's responsibility.  If you publish guidlines as how
to write code, then if someone's code doesn't follow them, it's their
problem.  But users have the full sources, so they can now make the code
work, or *pay* someone else to make it work.  No one is limited by the
non-availability of source.

>	5. And so on...

Which means what?  I'm a software developer (in college still, though)
and even though I have some problems with some of the statements made by
certain people within the GNU project, I still support the software.

I am currently working on a project which will be made available, not under
copyleft (not my choice) but under something similar.  I'll be more than 
willing to work on making GNU software work on a particular system.  

Say that I work for manufacturer X.  We make hardware (mostly).  I am paid
for writing new software.  It is developed on our hardware.  I try to make
it work on others (by writing in a device-independent manner).  But our
company will support it if run on our systems.  We also make it available
so that other people could make it run on their systems as well.  But if
users want support (from *us*) then they get it by buying our machines
or by buying support from us for their machines.  Either way we make money
and I get to eat when I go home at night.

Not a bad deal.  And in doing so, I have also created a body of code which
can be used by anyone (if they so desire) to warp and twist to their heart's
delight.  It's no skin off of my back if it doesn't work for them - it's
not guaranteed to.  And I don't support code on other systems unless I feel
like it (say if I get paid for it).

>I'm sure you can see other problems with that. If you can't see how
>giving up intellectual property rights can hurt you it's a failure
>in your imagination, not in the concept.

I don't think I have a failure in my imagination.  I believe that it can work.
What we need are hardware companies making the best hardware possible, and
letting the GNU world work on the software.  I don't support the outlawing of
all property rights - if you want to hoard your software, then that is fine
by me - but don't think that I won't use a free competitor if one is available.
Or don't be too surprised if I write a package which is similar (providing the
functions that I need) and make it freely available. 

>-- 
>Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation.
>Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "...helping make the world
>Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com.   `-_-' |  a quote-free zone..."
>Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today?  'U`  |    -- hjm@cernvax.cern.ch