🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On 21 May 92 13:09:58 GMT, rsw@cs.brown.EDU (Bob Weiner) said:

> 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.

>> 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.

Which is all well and good for the *user* of the software, but, in the GPL
world (depending on how you measure return on investment), the well-developed
code gets high use and the *developer* sees no more return from it (although
the *distributor* might).  Where's the incentive for future development?

>> 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?

> ... 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.

Yeah, I see what you mean.  However, you have to take into account the real
world pragmatics of "kill or be killed" business world.  Namely, it seems more
likely that a sponsor would want to develop *targeted results* to his problems
under something more restrictive than the GPL.  Why should a sponsor bring in
someone to solve his problem (be it by writing a song or developing software)
only to have that solution be made readily available to competitors?

This question is (attempted to be) solved in two ways in the current world.
The first is through company proprietary development (aka. nobody but me uses
this development and I see a return on development based on how useful it is
to me).  The second is through the copyright mechanism (aka. you can use my
development only if you help me see a return on that development).

--
====================================================================
David Masterson					Consilium, Inc.
(415) 691-6311					640 Clyde Ct.
davidm@consilium.com				Mtn. View, CA  94043
====================================================================
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious."
-- Albert Einstein