mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (07/30/89)
<It strikes me that the two side in this discussion are not talking about <quite the same thing. "Using software to make a better product" (Mike) <sounds good, but what if (as Peter seems to be saying) software IS the <product? That's a minority case, and only occurs because of the warped view of intellectual property society has now. <And no one has addressed the issue, raised by Peter, of development cost. The development cost only applies when the software is the product. When the software is a tool to be used by the developers, then the development cost is overhead, like internal memos, books of procedures, and the coffee machine. <The bottom line: if you want to make a living out of programming, you <or your company needs to copyright your code in order to maintain your <rights to sell the code. This is a false statement, the same one made by Peter. I make a living out of programming (a quite nice one, I might add), and neither I nor my employer copyright my programs to maintain rights to sell them. Ditto for RMS. Ditto for 90% of the programmers in the world. In fact, it's not even true for all the people who make a living working for companies produce software as a product. Your world view (and Peter's) is for some reason warped. I've noticed this tendency among people who are making a living as programmers selling software. Most programmers aren't in that situation. They are doing maintenance and/or development for someone who uses the tools the programmers work on as tools, not as product. Those people have no need to sell the tools, and for many of the tools don't care whether others see and use them. Of course, in some cases, they aren't willing to release the software at all, because they consider it a vital edge on their competition. To those people, the GNU copyleft is no problem - they either give away sources, or districute nothing. <The FSF seeks to establish a different kind of property <right, by claiming rights to any software which "uses" GNU software, <where "uses" varies from program incarnation to program incarnation. Well, the FSF uses the copyright laws to force people who use their tools to follow their version of what the intellectual property laws should be. This is exactly what a commercial software developer does. It's just that the FSF wants things to be best for society, while the developer wants things to be best for the developer. Naturally enough, commercial software developers have problems with this. The rest of society doesn't. <The pro-GNU forces will undoubtably flame me soundly, that's okay, I <have my asbestos undies on. They seem to outnumber the counter-GNU <forces by a considerable margin. Yup - by about the margin of commercial software developers to all other software developers, or 9-1. <mike -- When logic and proportion have fallen softly dead, Mike Meyer And the white knight is talking backwards, mwm@berkeley.edu And the red queen's off her head, ucbvax!mwm Remember what the dormouse said. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (07/30/89)
In article <26778@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > This is a false statement, the same one made by Peter. I make a living > out of programming (a quite nice one, I might add), and neither I nor > my employer copyright my programs to maintain rights to sell them. > Ditto for RMS. That, I'll accept. > Ditto for 90% of the programmers in the world. That, I won't. You're playing games with words. Just because the direct product of the company is not software doesn't mean they won't be hurt by the FSF copyleft. Most of the software in the world is sold as part of a system. It's not sold explicitly as a seperate product, but it's sold nevertheless. And free access to the sourtce code of this software would indeed hurt the company. Reverse engineering from object code is no substitute for the source. > Your world view (and Peter's) is for some reason warped. I've noticed > this tendency among people who are making a living as programmers > selling software. I make a living supporting other people who write software as part of a system that's sold to electric utility companies. Ferranti goes to some lengths to keep competitors away from the source to the system. I'd hate to see what would happen if CDC had free access to all our released source. > Well, the FSF uses the copyright laws to force people who use their > tools to follow their version of what the intellectual property laws > should be. I.e., RMS uses the copyleft to promote his Marxist programmer's utopia, because all his buddies left the MIT AI Lab for higher-paying jobs in the industry. He has said as much. > It's just that the FSF wants things to be best for society, When a man comes up to you with the intent of doing you good, run the other way. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (08/01/89)
In article <5363@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: <In article <26778@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: <> Ditto for 90% of the programmers in the world. < <That, I won't. You're playing games with words. < <Just because the direct product of the company is not software doesn't mean <they won't be hurt by the FSF copyleft. Peter, you have this habit of reading straw men into what other people write, without regarding what they actually wrote. I didn't say that _only_ people who sell explictily software would have problems with copyleft. I said that over 90% of the programmers in the world aren't in a position where selling the software is needed. I didn't even say that copyleft wouldn't hurt you if you weren't in the software business - I said that if they didn't need to sell the software, then copyleft won't bother them. <Most of the software in the world is sold as part of a system. Um, first of all, most software (by raw line count, not by package/program count) in the world isn't sold - it's PA. That's because most of it is written by the US government using taxpayers money, which was (until recently) required to go into the public domain (with the minor exception of software that was classified). Now, if you restrict your statment to "most of the software sold in the world is sold...", then I might be able to accept it - once again, by raw line count, not by program or package count. The "might" is because a fair number of the people who sell software bundled that way are willing (or, if they're IBM, required by judicial order) to sell the same software unbundled. If that weren't true, and all software that was sold as part of a package weren't sold in any other form, then I'd say you were right. Note that, while these packages compromise a majority of lines sold, it doesn't follow that the majority of programmers working on lines sold are working on such products. And I didn't talk about size of packages number of lines etc, but about number of _programmers_. <It's not <sold explicitly as a seperate product, but it's sold nevertheless. And free <access to the sourtce code of this software would indeed hurt the company. Did I say it wouldn't? <I make a living supporting other people who write software as part of a <system that's sold to electric utility companies. Ferranti goes to some <lengths to keep competitors away from the source to the system. I'd hate <to see what would happen if CDC had free access to all our released source. I've worked for companies that did similar things, except we didn't distribute binaries. No problem for us. Note that I didn't say that people who bundle other things with their software and sell that package wouldn't be hurt if their stuff was copyleft. After all, they are doing software development for commercial purposes. Of course, I don't think that most such people would be hurt. After all, if they bundle the software, they have a dongle. They don't have a problem unless they buy the dongle from someone else who could go into competition with them, as the patents & copyrights on the _dongle_ should do the trick. Though if there's a big enough market, someone will reverse-engineer the dongle. But the same is true of the software. <> It's just that the FSF wants things to be best for society, < <When a man comes up to you with the intent of doing you good, run the other <way. Right. After all, we wouldn't _ever_ want to benefit by somebody else's good will, would we? That's why you don't trust people's good will, you trust their their self-interest. It works better. And you yourself pointed out that Stallman's self-interest is in creating a programmers utopia. <mike -- It's been a hard day's night, Mike Meyer And I been working like a dog. mwm@berkeley.edu It's been a hard day's night, ucbvax!mwm I should be sleeping like a log. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/01/89)
In article <26832@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > Peter, you have this habit of reading straw men into what other people > write, without regarding what they actually wrote. Funny, I have the same impression about you. > I didn't say that _only_ people who sell explictily software would > have problems with copyleft. I said that over 90% of the programmers > in the world aren't in a position where selling the software is > needed. I know. I have not in any way misrepresented your position. I just do not believe this statement to be factual. I have tried to explain that there are many ways in which software can be part of a product, without being explicitly "sold". A company that had to give the source to this software away is at a competitive disadvantage. Even if I grant you your point, I think I can demonstrate that it is not relevant. There is a ghenuine need for the products that I speak of. Such products as 747s, passenger cars, microwave ovens, and energy management systems are necessary. To compete effectively if you manufacture these products you need to protect the source to your embedded software. Therefore there are cases where hoarding software is necessary. > Um, first of all, most software (by raw line count, not by > package/program count) in the world isn't sold - it's PA. Most of the software in the world is written in Cobol on IBM mainframes and minicomputers. The vast majority of this code is wasted and duplicated effort, even if it is PD. Hardly a shining example for the GNU side. > Did I say it wouldn't? Bu claiming that "hoarding software" is "evil and rude", and urging that everyone give away their software... Yes. > Of course, I don't think that most such people would be hurt. After > all, if they bundle the software, they have a dongle. They don't have > a problem unless they buy the dongle from someone else who could go > into competition with them, as the patents & copyrights on the > _dongle_ should do the trick. Having people steal the software to use it is NOT the only way that people can be hurt by giving away their source. Again, CDC would have relatively little trouble finding ways to use such information about Ferranti's source code to gain an unfair competitive advantage. > Though if there's a big enough market, someone will reverse-engineer > the dongle. But the same is true of the software. The fact that CDC has their own systems isn't relevant. The fact that people can reverse-engineer the software is similarly not relevant. > <> It's just that the FSF wants things to be best for society, > <When a man comes up to you with the intent of doing you good, run the other > <way. > Right. After all, we wouldn't _ever_ want to benefit by somebody > else's good will, would we? Your education is lacking. That is a paraphrase of a relatively famous quote. My education is, to a lesser extent, lacking... I can't recall who said it. My brain is trying to tell me it was Mark Twain. The intent of the quote is that someone else's idea of what is good for you may not actually match either what is really good for you... or even your idea. > That's why you don't trust people's good will, you trust their their > self-interest. Wonderful. A reasonable, meaningful statement. One that I can accept. > It works better. And you yourself pointed out that > Stallman's self-interest is in creating a programmers utopia. His idea of a programmer's utopia, where all his good buddies from the MIT AI lab are back working on cool software in the MIT AI lab, making just enough to get along so they can keep working on cool software. Not my idea of a programmer's utopia. Programmers are also people. We have families and expenses and mundane ambitions. Some of us would like to own our own houses in reasonably nice parts of town. Programming is not an end in and of itself. No, we would not like his idea of a utopia at all. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu (Greg Lee) (08/02/89)
From article <5401@ficc.uu.net>, by peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva): >... There is a ghenuine need for the products that I speak of. Such >products as 747s, passenger cars, microwave ovens, and energy management >systems are necessary. To compete effectively if you manufacture these >products you need to protect the source to your embedded software. ... This is less than obvious. If a manufacturer of microwave ovens commenced using all the currently available Gnu-programs in development of their ovens and made their software publicly available to the extent required by the copylefts, how and why would they compete less effectively? Greg, lee@uhccux.uhcc.hawaii.edu
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (08/02/89)
In article <5401@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: <In article <26832@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: <> Peter, you have this habit of reading straw men into what other people <> write, without regarding what they actually wrote. < <Funny, I have the same impression about you. Hmm. Maybe we should both take more care. <I know. I have not in any way misrepresented your position. I just do not <believe this statement to be factual. I have tried to explain that there <are many ways in which software can be part of a product, without being <explicitly "sold". A company that had to give the source to this software <away is at a competitive disadvantage. I am aware of this. I tried to explain that 1) the number included this set is much smaller than you think, and 2) in many cases, it doesn't make any difference. <Even if I grant you your point, I think I can demonstrate that it is not <relevant. There is a ghenuine need for the products that I speak of. Such <products as 747s, passenger cars, microwave ovens, and energy management <systems are necessary. To compete effectively if you manufacture these <products you need to protect the source to your embedded software. Ok. Let's take an example I'm familiar with (as opposed to Ferranti, which I'm not), and consider passenger cars. A company produces those, and charges some extra amount for whatever software is on board. Now, assume they make the source code to that software available. Two things happen: 1) those people who sell roms to change the performance now have an easier job, and can charge marginally less for the roms. These means that the cost of the better-tuned (in the sense of the purchaser) is lower, so that people can buy more of the tweaked proms. In fact, there will certainly be some people that will be the car at the new price-performance position that wouldn't have before, so the manufacturer sells more cars. 2) backyard mechanics have an easier time tweaking the proms. These means they can get to the performance they want by doing that instead of buying more hardware. Net result is the same as above. However, by making these peoples jobs easier, you've also made it easier for them to do lots of other things - like create cars that don't pass emissions, or that more power than their suspension will handle. But any time you give people more tools, you're giving them more ways to hurt themselves. Not being a fan of big brother, I don't consider that sufficient reason to keep them from the tools. So how does giving away sources hurt these people? Some of them even socket the proms and make them accessible from the passenger compartment. As a matter of fact, the autombile industry provides a good example of the kind of atmosphere that the FSF is trying to create. In 1915, the major players in the US auto industry agreed that all patents (with a few minor exceptions) could be used freely one year after the patent was issued. This agreement was renewed until 1955. Compare that with the current software industry, where lawyers are as important as programmers, and tend to make more money. Compare the growth rate of the auto industry from then (a year after Ford introduced the assembly line, and tried to make cars affordable to everyone) to the history of the personal computer industry after the introductdion of the Apple (the closest analogy I can come up with - maybe the IBM PC would be better). Now, which would you rather have been in? <Therefore there are cases where hoarding software is necessary. If you prefixed that with "to maximize profits," I'd agree. However, I don't think you've demonstrated a need other than that. That's not sufficient. <Most of the software in the world is written in Cobol on IBM mainframes and <minicomputers. The vast majority of this code is wasted and duplicated <effort, even if it is PD. Hardly a shining example for the GNU side. It's nota good example. That's one reason that GNU makes sure you give away source if you do any distribution at all - to avoid duplication of effort. Go see the other thread. I'd argue about that figure, though. Most _programmers_ are working in that slot. But things like the NASA space tracking system, it's shuttle simulator, the NAS gas flow code, etc aren't written in COBOL, and don't run on IBM mainframes. I claim that the total of code in those projects and similar things is far greater than the IBM shops code. <> <> It's just that the FSF wants things to be best for society, < <> <When a man comes up to you with the intent of doing you good, run the other <> <way. < <> Right. After all, we wouldn't _ever_ want to benefit by somebody <> else's good will, would we? < <Your education is lacking. That is a paraphrase of a relatively famous quote. <My education is, to a lesser extent, lacking... I can't recall who said it. Failure to mention recognition is not failure to recognize. I recognized it as a paraphrase. So I responded with one of my own, expecting you to recognize mine. I just didn't see any reason to mention it. <The intent of the quote is <that someone else's idea of what is good for you may not actually match either <what is really good for you... or even your idea. Hmm - we may have different paraphrases in mind. The intent of the one I recall is echoed in the one I quoted: <> That's why you don't trust people's good will, you trust their <> self-interest. < <Wonderful. A reasonable, meaningful statement. One that I can accept. The actual quote is: Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage. <> It works better. And you yourself pointed out that <> Stallman's self-interest is in creating a programmers utopia. < <His idea of a programmer's utopia, where all his good buddies from the <MIT AI lab are back working on cool software in the MIT AI lab, making just <enough to get along so they can keep working on cool software. < <Not my idea of a programmer's utopia. Not his idea, either. He doesn't want everyone back at the MIT AI lab; he wants them to act like all those people did, and share programs freely with each other, so everybody gains. <Programmers are also people. We have families and expenses and mundane <ambitions. Some of us would like to own our own houses in reasonably nice <parts of town. Programming is not an end in and of itself. And now, you're making the same mistake that triggered the other thread. You're acting like hoarding software is the only way to make money out of programming. This just isn't so. To consider the other side of self-interest, the stated self-interest of software hoarders is to make as much money for themselves as possible. Some of us want to raise a family and spend time with them, use the things we pay property tax on, and in general enjoy life. Making money is no more an end in itself than programming is. Now, given the choice between someone who wants to put as many of your dollars in their pockets as they can, and someone who wants to make everyone be nice to each other and share, which would you choose? <mike -- Es brillig war. Die schlichte Toven Mike Meyer Wirrten und wimmelten in Waben; mwm@berkeley.edu Und aller-mumsige Burggoven ucbvax!mwm Die mohmem Rath' ausgraben. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) (08/02/89)
In article <26879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: >And now, you're making the same mistake that triggered the other >thread. You're acting like hoarding software is the only way to make >money out of programming. This just isn't so. Perhaps, but--why should asserting rights to the product of one's intellectual labor (I refuse to use the phrase "software hoarding," since it is a loaded term intended to make one accept RMS's philosophy, sort of like that tiny bunch of people in 1917 who named themselves "The Majority") be considered wrong? >Now, given the choice between someone who wants to put as many of your >dollars in their pockets as they can, and someone who wants to make >everyone be nice to each other and share, which would you choose? I don't know--I'm not presented with that choice. I see a bunch of people who assert that the efforts I exert to provide a service and put some money in *my* pockets are evil, and that I should be willing to do that work for nothing. James Jones
lars@salt.acc.com (Lars J Poulsen) (08/03/89)
In article <26879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU> mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike Meyer) writes: >>And now, you're making the same mistake that triggered the other >>thread. You're acting like hoarding software is the only way to make >>money out of programming. This just isn't so. In article <1312@mcrware.UUCP> jejones@mcrware.UUCP (James Jones) writes: >Perhaps, but--why should asserting rights to the product of one's >intellectual labor (I refuse to use the phrase "software hoarding," >since it is a loaded term intended to make one accept RMS's philosophy, >sort of like that tiny bunch of people in 1917 who named themselves "The >Majority") be considered wrong? (1) I don't think it is necessarily wrong to "hoard" software, but I can understand why the FSF people may find it wrong. Now, please understand that they cannot prevent you from hoarding your software; they just reserve the right to not give you free help if you choose to be a "hoarder". Seems reasonable to me. Mike Meyer: >>Now, given the choice between someone who wants to put as many of your >>dollars in their pockets as they can, and someone who wants to make >>everyone be nice to each other and share, which would you choose? James Jones: >I don't know--I'm not presented with that choice. I see a bunch of people >who assert that the efforts I exert to provide a service and put some money >in *my* pockets are evil, and that I should be willing to do that work for >nothing. (2) You are free to amke money the way you want. But if you want to make money that way, you have to bear the cost: You have to buy commercial tools. It never ceases to amaze me, how conservatives insist on freedom to take advantage of others at the same time as they want protection from others like themselves. / Lars Poulsen <lars@salt.acc.com> (800) 222-7308 or (805) 963-9431 ext 358 ACC Customer Service Affiliation stated for identification only My employer probably would not agree if he knew what I said !!
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/03/89)
I said I wasn't going to get back in here, but I have one point that I think needs to be made: In article <26879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > Ok. Let's take an example I'm familiar with (as opposed to Ferranti, > which I'm not), and consider passenger cars. A company produces those, > and charges some extra amount for whatever software is on board. Now, > assume they make the source code to that software available. Two > things happen: 1) those people who sell roms to change the performance > now have an easier job, and can charge marginally less for the roms. And the manufacturer is now liable for damage caused by these hacked-up ROMS. You will, of course, make the claim that the FSF license will absolve them of responsibility, but such all-inclusive disclaimers have not held up in court. > 2) backyard mechanics have an easier time tweaking the proms. And suing GM. [Oh, let's add one more thing. Mike here is saying that profits are a bad thing:] > If you prefixed that with "to maximize profits," I'd agree. However, I > don't think you've demonstrated a need other than that. That's not > sufficient. But it is. In a competitive environment that reduces to "to minimise costs". -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"
mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) (08/04/89)
In article <5487@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: <In article <26879@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: <> Ok. Let's take an example I'm familiar with (as opposed to Ferranti, <> which I'm not), and consider passenger cars. A company produces those, <> and charges some extra amount for whatever software is on board. Now, <> assume they make the source code to that software available. Two <> things happen: 1) those people who sell roms to change the performance <> now have an easier job, and can charge marginally less for the roms. < <And the manufacturer is now liable for damage caused by these hacked-up <ROMS. You will, of course, make the claim that the FSF license will <absolve them of responsibility, but such all-inclusive disclaimers have <not held up in court. No, I won't I'll claim that you're wrong. Unless you also think that the manufacturer is liable for damages caused by tweaked engines, hacked suspensions, et. al. And if you believe that, I'm suprised you'd advocate selling _anything_. <[Oh, let's add one more thing. Mike here is saying that profits are a < bad thing:] < <> If you prefixed that with "to maximize profits," I'd agree. However, I <> don't think you've demonstrated a need other than that. That's not <> sufficient. Oh bullstuff. I'm saying that maximizing profits at the expense of everything else is a bad thing. <mike -- ICUROK2C, ICUROK2. Mike Meyer ICUROK2C, ICWR2. mwm@berkeley.edu URAQT, I WANT U2. ucbvax!mwm OO2EZ, I WANT U2. mwm@ucbjade.BITNET
peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) (08/04/89)
Mike was suggesting that manufacturers make the source to the ROMs for their cars available, as freeware... In article <5487@ficc.uu.net> peter@ficc.uu.net (Peter da Silva) writes: >And the manufacturer is now liable for damage caused by these hacked-up >ROMS. You will, of course, make the claim that the FSF license will >absolve them of responsibility, but such all-inclusive disclaimers have >not held up in court. In article <26942@agate.BERKELEY.EDU>, mwm@eris.berkeley.edu (Mike (I'll think of something yet) Meyer) writes: > No, I won't I'll claim that you're wrong. Unless you also think that > the manufacturer is liable for damages caused by tweaked engines, > hacked suspensions, et. al. If they published the design notes for the engine, to facilitate said tweaking, then they would be. Source code for embedded parts like this are the quivalent of design noted for more-easily-reverse-engineered hardware. That is, it's a peice of information the only use for, outside of the manufacturer, is modifying the engine. > Oh bullstuff. I'm saying that maximizing profits at the expense of > everything else is a bad thing. Since I never advocated maximising profits at the expense of everything else, that's both specious and the sort of straw man that you just got on my case about. -- Peter da Silva, Xenix Support, Ferranti International Controls Corporation. Business: peter@ficc.uu.net, +1 713 274 5180. | "The sentence I am now Personal: peter@sugar.hackercorp.com. `-_-' | writing is the sentence Quote: Have you hugged your wolf today? 'U` | you are now reading"