🚀 go-pugleaf

barmar@Think.COM (Barry Margolin) writes:
> In article <RRJ2aB7w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (To the Ground) w
> >Specifically, if we categorize people writing code as:
> >
> >a) People writing "free" software under the GPL,
> >b) People writing free software, and
> >c) People writing limited-distribution software,
> >
> >then if grant recipients' work is PD it can be used by all three categories
> >of programmer, whereas if it's GPLed it can only be used by people in
> >category a).
> 
> What about:
> 
> d) People who need to customize or enhance the derivative software.
> 
> If the derivative software is implemented by people in category (c) then
> category (d) can't use it.

Indeed.  But the derivative software is not funded by grant, or else it
would be PD.  Therefore the fact that hypothetical derivative software cannot
be used by some classes of people is not really relevant.

That is, given the choice between making all grant-funded software useless
to many people, or making some software *derived from* grant-funded software
(but not itself grant-funded) useless to some people, it seems 
reasonable to me that the latter be considered more in keeping with 
the idea that grant spending should benefit the public whilst private
spending may not.

> >> price, and distribute without source code.  I remember using X on
> >> HP machines, when we found a serious bug in the server.  Since HP
> >> didn't ship sources, we had no way to fix the bug short of going
> >> back to the raw MIT distribution.
> >
> >So go back to the raw MIT distribution and create a specially-tuned version
> >from that.  Distribute it under the GPL.  Compete by BEING BETTER, not by
> >forcing other people to do what you want using legal threats.
> 
> He didn't say he wanted to implement a specially-tuned version; all he
> wanted to do was fix a bug.

Right. And if he'd been using a GPL HP-tuned X rather than a 
commercial HP-tuned X he would have been able to. Clearly there is a 
demand for specially-tuned GPL versions of X, so why do such things 
not exist? Why doesn't someone go out and create one? We're always 
being told that the GPL is fine as a means of distributing specialized
software, so let's see some examples.

In short, I wasn't suggesting that *he specifically* should go and 
implement a special version of X from scratch; I was hinting that 
perhaps he should be asking why there isn't a GPL version.

Of course, if he does tune the 'free' version of X for his HP, no doubt we can
be assured that he will place the new version under the GPL, yes?

> >If the GNU way is so great, how come HP can get away with selling an HP
> >version of X? Why isn't there already an HP version of X available for
> >free? Could it be that (*gasp*) the GNU way isn't as good at producing
> >special limited-market versions of software as we have been led to 
> >believe?
> 
> The fact that some specific programs haven't been distributed under the GPL
> could hardly be a justification for condemning the entire philosophy.

I'm not attempting to draw that inference.  I'm saying that if the GPL is
fine as a strategy for encouraging special-purpose software, then given that
there's a demand for tuned versions of X with source, and given that there
are lots of people out there who could be doing the work, it seems to me
that we ought to have seen at least one or two GPLed tuned versions of X
by now.

So I'm casting doubt on the assertion that the GPL can compete with 
conventional methods of funding development of special purpose software,
not asserting that the GPL is entirely useless.

>                                                                        HP
> can get away with what they do because no one has yet had the inclination
> to write a copylefted version.

Then if we have to rely on "inclination" to encourage software development 
rather than monetary reward, we'll be waiting rather a long time, won't 
we? :-)

> And what about my point about the possible undocumented hardware
> interfaces?  If this were true, it would be virtually impossible for a
> third party to write a good X server without licensing technology from the
> system vendor.

In which case we would see good, free X servers for the documented systems,
and expensive proprietary X servers for the undocumented systems.  And people
would buy the former over the latter, would they not?

Or is there some conspiracy by hardware manufacturers to ensure that their
systems are badly documented so that we all have to buy their proprietary
X servers?


mathew

-- 
Another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices.