🚀 go-pugleaf

barmar@think.com (Barry Margolin) writes:
> In article <RNB0aB22w164w@mantis.co.uk> mathew@mantis.co.uk (mathew) writes:
> >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.
> 
> Even Stallman admits that his approach can't really "compete" with
> commercial software development organizations.  His proposal is that all
> software should be free, and software developers should be paid by the
> government out of a software tax.

Well, I suppose I'm more of an idealist then.  I think free software can
compete with commercial software.

> Most customers don't really care about the source code, so market forces by
> themselves won't result in its availability (if there were that many people
> who wanted source code, market forces would already have had that result).

So why is it a problem that the HP X server isn't freely redistributable
with source? We're expected to undertake a complete restructuring of 
the economic basis for software development just so a tiny minority 
who want freely redistributable source code can be assured that 
they'll have it?

> In particular, when evaluating workstations, most customers' criteria
> include performance rather than available free software.

Which presumably means that people don't want free software.  Or am I missing
something?

> It has to come from the realization that there's a small segment of the
> customer base that's better served by providing source.

You're mixing up the two issues of source availability and 
redistributability again, but basically you make it sound as though the
GPL is an attempt by a tiny minority to push their view at the expense of
the majority.


mathew

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