🚀 go-pugleaf

dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu (Douglas F. DeJulio) writes:
> Let's assume company X needs a particular piece of specialized
> software.  They pay programmer Y to write a package for them.  The
> programmer writes it and releases it under the GNU copyleft -- he's
> not selling the product (the software), but the service of having
> written it.  Once company X has its software, both that company and
> the programmer are free to distribute the source if they want to
> (though neither is obligated unless they distribute the binary first).
> The company may or may not wish to continue purchasing the service of
> support from the programmer at this point.

The problem with such a scheme is that it's much more expensive for the
purchaser.

Suppose the development cost for a piece of specialized software is $100,000.
With your suggested way of working, company X has to pay programmer Y
$100,000 to get a solution to the problem.  Nine other companies then grab
copies of the software and use it.

The alternative (non-GNU) method sees company X pay $10,000, and the nine
other companies all pay $10,000 as well.  Since company X is in business to
make money, it will prefer the non-GNU method.

Of course, company X might hang around and see if any of the nine other
companies decide to blow $100,000 on having something custom-written, and
company X might then be able to grab a copy for free.

I find it hard to imagine many companies preferring the GNU way to the
hoarders' way; and it seems likely to me that if the GNU method were the only
way, we'd see companies sitting around twiddling their thumbs waiting for
someone else to fund the software development they want.  And I don't think
that would be a good thing.


mathew