🚀 go-pugleaf

miron@cs.sfu.ca (Miron Cuperman) writes:
> What do you mean "the GPL doesn't hurt anybody"?  If you put the GPL
> on specialized software, the authors of the software will not recover
> their cost.  Once they see that, they will not write the software
> in the first place.  Then the customers will not be able to get the
> software they want.  So both the would be authors and their customers
> are hurt.

You're assuming a particular way of working.  Let's use the
service-based as opposed to product-based approach.

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.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is that Cygnus does at
least some of their business this way.  It's totally ethical and
within the reasonable bounds of the restrictions placed by the
copyleft.

> How about thinking before posting this nonsense?

How about thinking of alternative points of view before assuming
you're dealing with idiots?
-- 
Doug DeJulio
dd26+@andrew.cmu.edu
ddj@zardoz.club.cc.cmu.edu