🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <DAVIDM.92May20132127@consilium.com> davidm@consilium.com (David S. Masterson) writes:

>>>>>> On 20 May 92 02:16:36 GMT, rsw@cs.brown.EDU (Bob Weiner) said:
> 
>> The designer and/or programmer gets his name and contact information
>> on it as a client draw, not to mention the reputation boost as his
>> work spreads.  People tend to prefer to hire those whom they have some
>> idea will be able to do good work, so you still have a very
>> market-based environment with lots of GPLed work of varying quality
>> floating around.
> 
> Hmmm.  I keep coming up with an inverse relationship here.

Inverse relative to what?

> The better the
> programmer does his job with the original software, the less a client needs
> that programmer (at least with respect to what that piece of software did).

Obviously, sort of like saying the better you solve a problem, the less
you may have to focus on it in the future.  Sort of like saying that
good design can reduce maintenance and design evolution effort.  So
what?  Your parenthetical statement is the key to the thought.  The
programmer is able to go on to solving new problems, something he should
like to do if he is to be a programmer.  A client who has a problem
solved well is likely to again use the same person/team to help on
further similar kinds of problems.


> The more the client needs the person to work on that software, the
> less likely it is that the programmer did his job originally...

Ah, maybe a source for metrics.  "Gee, we know you've been programming
feverishly for the last four years, but isn't that kind of long to write
an address book manager?"

>> In article <DAVIDM.92May19164715@consilium.com> davidm@consilium.com (David
>> S. Masterson) writes:
> 
>>> Is this akin to telling songwriters that they have to become singers (and
>>> d*** good ones at that) if they GPL'ed their songs and wanted to be able to
>>> make a living at it?
> 
>> No, it is akin to providing a strong monetary incentive to find a sponsor
>> for the production of a song.  We all know that songwriters, like other
>> artists, do what they do for many more reasons than just monetary incentive.
> 
> Ignore the altruism for a moment (as they say "that and a dime will get you
> coffee").

Sort of like saying ignore all research university sponsorship done
without confidentiality agreements.  Clearly, there are significant
marketplace forces that want to see growth in publicly available
knowledge, information and the arts.

> What incentive is there for a sponsor to take on the singer
> (programmer) when they can just wait for some other sponsor to bring out the
> song (program) and then make use of it under the GPL?

Read the GNU Manifesto.  People hire people to do work they need done,
most especially in an open market.  If everything will get done without
any external inputs like money, then there is no need to put any in.  We
know this is not the case, however.  So the incentive is that people can
produce *targeted results* by offering sponsorship, and those who cannot
obtain completely unfettered support will gravitate toward such
sponsors.  The sponor gets his problem solved whether or not others can
use the material after it is released.

>>> The theory [of GPL] seems very simple, but the practicality of it seems
>>> fraught with danger.
> 
>> One could also argue that maintaining a system of intellectual property
>> rights that almost wholly ignore the needs and individual purchasing power
>> of the society in which the IP is created is at least as fraught with danger
>> as any change that the GPL engenders.  I choose not to make this argument,
>> but one should at least be aware of the view.
> 
> Why does the Star Trek line hit me now:
> 
> "The needs of the many out way the needs of the few -- or the one."

Sometimes true, sometimes not.

> What you seem to be suggesting is that IP rights (attempt to) ensure that the
> rights of the individual are guarded, often at the cost of the public in
> general.  On the other hand, GPL (attempts to) ensure the rights of
> the public by changing the interests of the individual toward those
> things that lead to the common good.  True?

I would tend to agree with this.  Does anyone, aside from the unnamed
person who wanted to start the Truly FSF, have a problem with
encouraging such behavior by GPLing your work?

Bob

--
It's not racism, it's money.	-- Michael Ventura, Boston Globe, 3/8/92