🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <970012@gore.com> jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) writes:
>> And they might, given that competitors can use the gift to erode income.
>
>That is why having GNU-based code is more appealing to hardware-producing
>companies than to those who only make software.
granted.

>Me>Yes.  And if the management of _your_ company can see past their noses,
>Me>they'd realize that it still makes sense, because other people (and
>Me>companies) enhanced software for _your_ company.
>> This is "highly illogical".
	The above argument for use of Gnu software is illogical -- it
isn't claiming that there's no dilemna, it attempts to say that because
someone else benefitted you, its to your advantage to benefit them.
This is a claim that, faced with a prisoner's dilemna, it makes sense
to cooperate.  I reject this claim as illogical.

...
>Axioms:
>...	 4. o = 0 [overhead insignificant]
>	 5. c(X + d(X)) = c(X) + c(d(X))
(minor quibble -- its easier to develop a system as a whole than to develop
one and then modify it -- c(X+d(X)) < c(X) + c(d(X)) but not by much)
>	 6. s = g + d(g)
>	 7. t(g) = 0
>	 8. t(d(g)) << t(s)
	Assuming that there are no alternative sources of software than
GNU (e.g. competiting operating systems).

>Theorem:
>	 9. c(g+d(g)) << c(s)
[proof omitted]
	This still doesn't answer the real question -- is it profitable.
The cost is less, but there may be less revenue derived from the use of
this software.  Also, one can sell s, but not g+d(g)...

>My point is that there may not be a dilemma in the first place.
	As I say, that's a different question.  In some cases there is
not a dilemna (as I imply with my point about small modifications) but
if one is making "major" revisions, then d(g) becomes quite significant
in time and cost factors (reducing to c(g+d(g)) < c(s)) -- also, the
5th axiom becomes dubious -- with major revisions, it is far easier to
develop as a single unit (also the resulting software will generally
be "better" -- in one or several of: smaller, faster, less buggy, etc.)
	Ron