🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On 22 May 92 19:51:43 GMT, gl8f@fermi.clas.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
>>>>> said:

> Looks like we're back to the same flamewar...

Sorry, I didn't mean this to be a flamewar.  There are some aspects to the
idea of "free" software that I don't understand yet and I'm trying to compare
and contrast opinions on "free" software to see how they hold up (especially
with my own).  In order to draw out all the interesting ideas, some of my
statements may need to be seemingly flameworthy.

>>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?

> After considering your article, I have concluded you are correct.
> Therefore, we should immediately sue every public company who has helped
> develop GNU software: Data General, Cray, Alliant, Convex, Intel, Motorola,
> HP... because clearly they were not acting in the best interests of their
> shareholders.

Perhaps.  Or perhaps we just let them die on the vine of their own poor
decisions.  Time will tell...

> If you think this is a silly suggestion, then I believe you've thought
> of some incentives for future development.

Obviously, there are many possible reasons why a company might get involved
with "free" software.  Thinking from a purely capitalistic view:

1.  With the prediliction toward "open systems", "free" software represents a
way of achieving this.  By turning loose just the right amount of "free"
software, people begin to get the idea of what *my* "open" software can do.

2. By joining forces with other major companies in this development, I get
just as many benefits of their development as they do.  I can not only target
*my* software towards the fruits of my development, but also to the fruits of
their development as well.

3. When I believe that *my* internal base technology is (largely) not the way
that the market is going to go, then targeted joint developments in "free"
software (or any other software) allow me to change my base technology without
the significant investment that would be required of doing it on my own.

You'll note, though, that these reasons tend toward making "basic" technology
generally available in order to "level the playing field".  When it comes to
new advances that I make, then I want the option to leverage those new
advances to my benefit.  This is where most companies have a problem with
"free" software in that it can force a company to make its "new advance"
generally available without getting all the benefits out of it that it could.

--
====================================================================
David Masterson					Consilium, Inc.
(415) 691-6311					640 Clyde Ct.
davidm@consilium.com				Mtn. View, CA  94043
====================================================================
"A free society is one where it is safe to be unpopular."
-- Adlai Stevenson