🚀 go-pugleaf

Barry Margolin said:

>>Think of it this way:  Company X knows all there is to know about, say,
>>laying out circuit boards.  [...]
>>But for company X to give you their source code under the GPL would be
>>comparable to offering to have their engineers teach your people all their
>>best tricks, and to encourage you to tell these tricks to all your friends.

> If the people at company X really know that much more about laying out
> circuit boards than anyone else, then they're not going to be hurt that
> much.  While competitors are looking at the release N source code, company
> X will already be well into development of release N+1.  Company X always
> has the advantage of time.

> But in reality, company X can't know "all there there is to know about"
> their application domain.

Very true, and that's why they can't afford to assume they'll stay out
in front through sheer superiority.  It can take much less time for
company Y to copy company X's ideas than for company X to invent and
perfect new ideas.  In the meanwhile company X and Y offer the same
features, but company X has a huge R&D investment to pay off.  Company
Y can undersell company X and steal their market out from under them;
then, while company X is devoting all its resources developing version
N+1, company Y is spending its resources on marketing, knowing they can
swipe version N+1's ideas after it comes out.

Now, there's no doubt that this can be used as an excuse for dirty deeds.
Apple's suit against Microsoft Windows is basically over this issue.
I don't fault Apple unconditionally for their attitude, but I do fault
them a) because they had years before MS Windows came out where they had
the GUI market all to themselves (more or less), and b) because Apple
didn't in fact invent many of the ideas that make up their user interface.

> The GNU philosophy is that we should all be able
> to build upon each others' expertise, filling in these holes in expertise
> to produce better software.  In particular, if I purchase software from
> company X, and *I* come up with an idea to enhance it (either a new
> feature, a customization, or a bug fix), I should be able to implement that
> idea.

... And that's why the GPL is such a great thing.  I've distributed
four major programs and several smaller ones under the terms of the
GPL, so I obviously believe the GPL is worthwhile, but I'm not trying
to make a living from that software.

I agree that all software producers should consider shipping with
sources.  They should even consider making their software free if they
can.  But I find it hard to call them evil software hoarders just because
they can't afford to give their software away.

> If I had the source code, I wouldn't be stuck waiting for company X to get
> around to implementing my request.  [...]

If company X gave you source at little or no extra charge, but in
exchange for a strict non-disclosure agreement, you could do all the
things you describe.  You could also share your changes with other X
customers who have signed the agreement.

								-- Dave