meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (12/19/89)
In article <4049@convex.UUCP> tchrist@convex.COM (Tom Christiansen) writes: | |Well, that's not quite true as far I understand these matters. You can |include copylefted code as part of a commercial release, providing that |you not charge extra for it above and beyond your standard release (save |for a maintenance warranty) and that you make the source available. If this |means using just some copylefted code in a new work, then the whole new |work falls under the copyleft. And this is (IMO) a bit absurd. If I use the gnu compiler, and link to the gnu compiler, then if I spend a year of effort to write something, I have no (legal, ie government monopoly, for those who bandy that term about so casually) way of ever making a cent off of that piece of software. I choose to make my living writing software. Everything I see from Mr. Stallman's published writings & interviews (1) says he thinks that makes me a jackass, or a thief, or various other things that imply I should maybe make my living in ironmongery. Abiding by the copyleft essentially is antithetical to making a living in the USA writing software, except for the chosen few who have been blessed with sugar daddies to pay for them to do just that. -Miles O'Neal {yr fave backbone here}!emory!stiatl!meo
rodney@dali.ipl.rpi.edu (Rodney Peck II) (12/19/89)
>>>>> On 18 Dec 89 23:49:12 GMT, meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) said:
Miles> Abiding by the copyleft essentially is antithetical to making a living
Miles> in the USA writing software, except for the chosen few who have been
Miles> blessed with sugar daddies to pay for them to do just that.
No... you don't have to use copylefted software to make a living. If you
want to use the work those other people (and their sugar daddies) have done
to make money yourself, then you're doing something extremely unfair.
If you want to write your own stuff, go right ahead.
--
Rodneynelson@sun.soe.clarkson.edu (Russ Nelson) (12/19/89)
In article <8255@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes:
If I use the gnu compiler, and link to the gnu compiler, then if I
spend a year of effort to write something, I have no way of ever
making a cent off of that piece of software.
Nonsense! The only "right" you are lacking is the legal right to restrict
people from copying your software. *You* interpret this to mean that you
then have no way to make money.
There is indeed a way to make money off of Copylefted software. You
find a user group whose members need a particular program that you are
capable of writing. The user group pays you your money and you write the
program.
They get a useful program that they can give to their friends, family,
and whoever else they want. And you get a risk-free way to earn XX
amount of dollars. You *know* that you will make money off of the
program, and you even know how much.
As I see it, what *you* want is the right to make an unlimited amount
of money off of your program.
--
--russ (nelson@clutx [.bitnet | .clarkson.edu]) Russ.Nelson@$315.268.6667
Live up to the light thou hast, and more will be granted thee.
A recession now appears more than 2 years away -- John D. Mathon, 4 Oct 1989.
I think killing is value-neutral in and of itself. -- Gary Strand, 8 Nov 1989.
Liberals run this country, by and large. -- Clayton Cramer, 20 Nov 1989.
Shut up and mind your Canadian business, you meddlesome foreigner. -- TK, 23 N.gumby@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (David Vinayak Wallace) (12/19/89)
Date: 18 Dec 89 23:49:12 GMT From: meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) And this is (IMO) a bit absurd. If I use the gnu compiler, and link to the gnu compiler, then if I spend a year of effort to write something, I have no (legal, ie government monopoly, for those who bandy that term about so casually) way of ever making a cent off of that piece of software. The copyleft says "distribute" not sell. You can sell copylefted code. You just can't enjoin the recipient from redistributing it. Anyway, how often do you "link to the compiler?" If you change the compiler, I'm glad that change may be redistributed! Merely compiling your code with the compiler does not bring it under the copyleft. I choose to make my living writing software. Everything I see from Mr. Stallman's published writings & interviews (1) says he thinks that makes me a jackass, or a thief... RMS makes his living writing software. He does not say that you shouldn't -- in fact he encourages it.
barmar@Think.COM (12/19/89)
In article <8255@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: >And this is (IMO) a bit absurd. If I use the gnu compiler, and link >to the gnu compiler, then if I spend a year of effort to write something, >I have no (legal, ie government monopoly, for those who bandy that term >about so casually) way of ever making a cent off of that piece of software. Others have already pointed out that you can charge for software, so long as you don't restrict what the purchaser may do with it (including making copies for himself). Another flaw in your argument is the part about linking (I assume you meant "linking to the GNU libraries", not "linking to the GNU compiler"); if you really want to restrict the purchaser's copying rights without violating the GNU copyleft, sell an unlinked version of your program and tell the purchaser to link it to his own libraries. Of course, this means that only people with compatible libraries can purchase your software. Alternatively, you can compile the program using the GNU compiler, but link it with a different library that isn't copylefted. >I choose to make my living writing software. Everything I see from Mr. >Stallman's published writings & interviews (1) says he thinks that makes >me a jackass, or a thief, or various other things that imply I should >maybe make my living in ironmongery. I also choose to make my living writing software. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who wants my software can have it; in fact, my employer generally doesn't mind my giving it away, since the programs I write are unrelated to our product line (I write and maintain development utilities used by our researchers, but our business is selling Connection Machines and CM software). >Abiding by the copyleft essentially is antithetical to making a living >in the USA writing software, except for the chosen few who have been >blessed with sugar daddies to pay for them to do just that. What's the difference between a sugar daddy and an employer? Who is Stallman's "sugar daddy", since he has been making a living writing software for years without a full-time employer (except perhaps the FSF, which probably can't afford to pay very well). Barry Margolin, Thinking Machines Corp. barmar@think.com {uunet,harvard}!think!barmar
shane@underdog.crd.ge.com (Randall H. Shane) (12/20/89)
In article <NELSON.89Dec18212423@image.clarkson.edu> nelson@clutx.clarkson.edu writes: ] In article <8255@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: ] ] If I use the gnu compiler, and link to the gnu compiler, then if I ] ] spend a year of effort to write something, I have no way of ever ] ] making a cent off of that piece of software. ] Nonsense! The only "right" you are lacking is the legal right to restrict ] people from copying your software. *You* interpret this to mean that you ] then have no way to make money. ] There is indeed a way to make money off of Copylefted software. You ] find a user group whose members need a particular program that you are ] capable of writing. The user group pays you your money and you write the ] program. ] They get a useful program that they can give to their friends, family, ] and whoever else they want. And you get a risk-free way to earn XX ] amount of dollars. You *know* that you will make money off of the ] program, and you even know how much. ] ] As I see it, what *you* want is the right to make an unlimited amount ] of money off of your program. So?? If people wish to pay an unlimited amount of money for his program, why shouldn't he take it?? (Of course, he also has the right to not make a cent, or lose his shirt if he's not careful.) Right now (Apple's lawsuits notwithstanding, and I hope they LOSE LOSE LOSE), RMS, Gnu, and company have the right to distribute copylefted software under their terms. That's fine -- if I don't like their terms, I don't have to use their software. Similarly, if I don't like Miles' terms, I don't have to use Miles' software. (Note : I don't even know if Miles HAS any software...). Stallman's stated goal in the GNU manifesto is to make Miles' (implied) terms illegal. I don't want to make Miles's, or Stallman's terms illegal, and I would assume that neither does Miles. Gnu tries to claim the moral high ground by stating that software is the common property of mankind, and that software should be shared, regardless of creatorship or ownership (the latter he denies can exist at all). I have no problem with shared software -- what I have a problem with is when Gnu & company demand the right to share MY software. Terms like 'software hoarders' don't make me feel any better disposed towards them either. If someone doesn't want to buy Miles' software, let them duplicate it. ('Look and Feel' lawsuits are for the birds.) -- Randall Shane [shane@disney.crd.ge.com] "My daughter is being taught that there is no man greater than Lenin. I brought her here so that she could see a man greater than Lenin." -- Russian woman at a memorial service for Andrei Sakharov
meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (12/20/89)
In article <GUMBY.89Dec18204105@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU> gumby@Gang-of-Four.Stanford.EDU (David Vinayak Wallace) writes: | |The copyleft says "distribute" not sell. You can sell copylefted |code. You just can't enjoin the recipient from redistributing it. the way I read it, it says if I write an original work that includes copylefted code (such as gnu C runtime libraries), I can't sell it. If I add to an existing thing, I can, but can't charge extra for anything related to the copylefted stuff. So, that means a new work done with GNU C would allow me only to charge for copying & distribution. Did I misread something? I'd truly love to find out I did. |Anyway, how often do you "link to the compiler?" If you change the DUH. Almost as good as a spelling flame. So I link to the runtime library. So I use calls in there. Go figure. |compiler, I'm glad that change may be redistributed! Merely compiling |your code with the compiler does not bring it under the copyleft. See above. Linking to the runtime seems to bind me (sic) to the copyleft. What did I miss? | I choose to make my living writing software. Everything I see from Mr. | Stallman's published writings & interviews (1) says he thinks that makes | me a jackass, or a thief... | |RMS makes his living writing software. He does not say that you |shouldn't -- in fact he encourages it. A nearly quote (from Byte?) "anybody who wants to make a lot of money writing software is a stupid jackass". Something close to this I have seen posted to the net, and quoted in a paper (magazine). Now maybe his idea of a lot of money is a lot more than I hope to make, but the idea I got from what I saw was that since software should be a "labor of love", I shouldn't expect to make much at all from it. -Miles
meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (12/20/89)
In article <32334@news.Think.COM> barmar@Think.COM writes: |anyone who wants my software can have it; in fact, my employer generally |doesn't mind my giving it away, since the programs I write are unrelated to |our product line (I write and maintain development utilities used by our |researchers, but our business is selling Connection Machines and CM |software). Yes, but a lot of people aren't in that position, and never will be. |>Abiding by the copyleft essentially is antithetical to making a living |>in the USA writing software, except for the chosen few who have been |>blessed with sugar daddies to pay for them to do just that. | |What's the difference between a sugar daddy and an employer? Who is |Stallman's "sugar daddy", since he has been making a living writing |software for years without a full-time employer (except perhaps the FSF, |which probably can't afford to pay very well). An employer pays me to do what they want. An SD would pay me to do what *I* want. Hey, I'd love to have one! Poor choice of words on my part, I suppose, tho. The FSF gets donations from individuals, and even from "major corporations, some in the computer business", according to email from someone affiliated with them. And if they don't pay well, why should I work for them? That's for ME to decide, not you, Stallman, or Big Brother (but that's another newsgroup...) -Miles
meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (12/20/89)
First off, let me make one thing perfectly clear, since it has gotten VERY muddy. I do NOT have anything personal against Richard Stallman or the Free Software Foundation. In fact, MOST of what he & they do and say seems right on. BUT reading other quotes attributed to Mr. Stallman, and for which I never see any denial, I have gotten the strong sense that he looks down on anyone who doesn't give their software away. Now, we go on to Randall's writings, in which he says what I have been trying to say, but haven't said NEARLY as well. In article <4304@crdgw1.crd.ge.com> shane@underdog.crd.ge.com (Randall H. Shane) writes: | So?? If people wish to pay an unlimited amount of money for |his program, why shouldn't he take it?? (Of course, he also has the |right to not make a cent, or lose his shirt if he's not careful.) |Right now (Apple's lawsuits notwithstanding, and I hope they LOSE LOSE |LOSE), RMS, Gnu, and company have the right to distribute copylefted |software under their terms. That's fine -- if I don't like their |terms, I don't have to use their software. Similarly, if I don't like |Miles' terms, I don't have to use Miles' software. (Note : I don't |even know if Miles HAS any software...). Stallman's stated goal in |the GNU manifesto is to make Miles' (implied) terms illegal. I don't |want to make Miles's, or Stallman's terms illegal, and I would assume |that neither does Miles. Gnu tries to claim the moral high ground by |stating that software is the common property of mankind, and that |software should be shared, regardless of creatorship or ownership (the |latter he denies can exist at all). I have no problem with shared |software -- what I have a problem with is when Gnu & company demand |the right to share MY software. Terms like 'software hoarders' don't |make me feel any better disposed towards them either. If someone |doesn't want to buy Miles' software, let them duplicate it. ('Look and |Feel' lawsuits are for the birds.) | |-- Randall Shane [shane@disney.crd.ge.com] |"My daughter is being taught that there is no man greater than |Lenin. I brought her here so that she could see a man greater than Lenin." | -- Russian woman at a memorial service for Andrei Sakharov On every count, "I wet my pants in vehement agreement" (from news.groups). -Miles
jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) (12/20/89)
/ gnu.misc.discuss / meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) / Dec 19, 1989 / > the way I read [GNU GPL], it says if I write an original work that includes > copylefted code (such as gnu C runtime libraries), I can't sell it. > If I add to an existing thing, I can, but can't charge extra for anything > related to the copylefted stuff. So, that means a new work done with > GNU C would allow me only to charge for copying & distribution. > > Did I misread something? I'd truly love to find out I did. 1. You can sell it as much as you want (and, as usual, find customers), as long as you follow the license. The major limitations are: 1. You cannot deny your custromers the right to distribute it further (they, of course, must also obey the GNU GPL if they distribute it). 2. (cost to customer of distribution with source) - (cost to customer of distribution without source) ---------------------------------------------------------------- (no greater than a reasonable media, shipping & handling charge) So, it is wrong to say that you are forbidden to sell copylefted code, though you won't be able to sell it using the currently common approach ("pay me for each copy or I'll sick FBI on you, and pay 100 times as much if you want the source"). 2. Code compiled with the GNU C compiler does NOT become copylefted just because it was compiled with the GNU C compiler. That only happens if you link with GNU libraries. Now, the GNU C++ compiler, by default, links in code from GNU libraries, so unless you make your copy of g++ go after non-copylefted libraries, you will end up with copylefted code. This is not the case with GNU C at all. Jacob -- Jacob Gore Jacob@Gore.Com boulder!gore!jacob
tale@cs.rpi.edu (David C Lawrence) (12/20/89)
> Now, the GNU C++ compiler, by default, links in code from GNU > libraries, so unless you make your copy of g++ go after > non-copylefted libraries, you will end up with copylefted code. G++ no longer links with libg++ by default. True enough, the largest widely available library for G++ is the libg++ code done by Doug Lea, but it is not the default linkage anymore. Dave -- (setq mail '("tale@cs.rpi.edu" "tale@ai.mit.edu" "tale@rpitsmts.bitnet"))
tower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (12/20/89)
Date: 20 Dec 89 03:20:48 GMT From: gore!jacob@boulder.colorado.edu (Jacob Gore) Organization: Gore Enterprises / gnu.misc.discuss / meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) / Dec 19, 1989 / > the way I read [GNU GPL], it says if I write an original work that includes > copylefted code (such as gnu C runtime libraries), I can't sell it. > If I add to an existing thing, I can, but can't charge extra for anything > related to the copylefted stuff. So, that means a new work done with > GNU C would allow me only to charge for copying & distribution. > Did I misread something? I'd truly love to find out I did. 1. You can sell it as much as you want (and, as usual, find customers), as long as you follow the license. The major limitations are: 1. You cannot deny your custromers the right to distribute it further (they, of course, must also obey the GNU GPL if they distribute it). 2. (cost to customer of distribution with source) - (cost to customer of distribution without source) -------------------------------------------------------- (no greater than a reasonable media, shipping & handling charge) So, it is wrong to say that you are forbidden to sell copylefted code, though you won't be able to sell it using the currently common approach ("pay me for each copy or I'll sick FBI on you, and pay 100 times as much if you want the source"). The parenthesized comment could be a little less emotional. ;-} 2. Code compiled with the GNU C compiler does NOT become copylefted just because it was compiled with the GNU C compiler. That only happens if you link with GNU libraries. Now, the GNU C++ compiler, by default, links in code from GNU libraries, so unless you make your copy of g++ go after non-copylefted libraries, you will end up with copylefted code. Well put. Thanx for saving me the time of saying this (again for the Nth time, for a very lage value of N ;-). I *STRONGLY URGE* anyone who wishes to talk about the GNU Project to carefully read the GNU Manifesto and GNU General Public License. The prose is clear, but some people have a lot of trouble understanding it. These people should re-read it *SLOWLY*, *CAREFULLY*, and without the *PRE-CONCEPTIONS* that make it seem to say things it does not. Then as a separate excercise, they should think about what it's real effects are and how it really works in the world, instead of what their *PRE-CONCEPTIONS* say its effects are. This is not the case with GNU C at all. At this time. I expect (guess not promise) that when the C libraries are released GCC will use them by default, and non-GPLers will have to go to extra effort to not use them. It's not a goal of the GNU Project to make life easy for non-GPLers. I would like to re-iterate that use of the Bison parser generator has the same effect as use of GNU Libraries. -- Jacob Gore Jacob@Gore.Co boulder!gore!jacob thanx -len
meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (12/21/89)
In article <970007@gore.com> jacob@gore.com (Jacob Gore) writes: | |1. You can sell it as much as you want (and, as usual, find customers), as |long as you follow the license. The major limitations are: | | 1. You cannot deny your custromers the right to distribute it further | (they, of course, must also obey the GNU GPL if they distribute it). | | 2. (cost to customer of distribution with source) | - (cost to customer of distribution without source) | ---------------------------------------------------------------- | (no greater than a reasonable media, shipping & handling charge) | |So, it is wrong to say that you are forbidden to sell copylefted code, |though you won't be able to sell it using the currently common approach As I have stated before, I have no more use for the "common aproach" than does the FSF. However, there are some problems with your "limitations" upon what I can do. 1) If I release good, quality software, that meets a real need, that doesn't need lots of support (I *said* quality*), with good documentation, then why on earth would people buy it if they could get it free? 2) A lot of other people, such as 103% of all the MIS-heads in the world, are going to lump it in with all that "public domain bulletin board stuff"- useless garbage and probably full of viruses, or at least nasty bugs (their perceptions, not mine). They would summarily have someone on their staff shot who even LET the stuff in the door. This does NOT appear to give me a good chance at making any decent living (ie, lower middle class income or above) off the software. Now, people are complaining about Peter's not addressing certain arguments. Well, these same people HAVE NOT yet addressed, to the best of my knowledge, some of mine. Do you people realize what goes on in a software firm? There's not just the cost of the staff (including funding future projects, not just paying off old debts), but the cost of the building, legal stuff, accounting stuff, marketing, distribution, phones, benefits (vacation, insurance, etc), and so on, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. So be sure when you blithely talk of "recovering the cost of the software development" that you realize not all of us want to hack the night away for a year, just to give the world a birthday present. -Miles
kjones@talos.uu.net (Kyle Jones) (12/21/89)
Miles O'Neal writes about the GPL: > [...] there are some problems with your "limitations" upon what I can > do. > > 1) If I release good, quality software, that meets a real need, that doesn't > need lots of support (I *said* quality*), with good documentation, then > why on earth would people buy it if they could get it free? Forget it. Even quality software needs support. Ask the authors of C news. Ask the authors of your favorite piece of software. You cannot possibly anticipate everything that the users will want, even if your code is completely bug free. And when you start adding things that the users want, you will inevitably introduce bugs. There will be a market for software maintenance, believe it. > 2) A lot of other people, such as 103% of all the MIS-heads in the world, > are going to lump it in with all that "public domain bulletin board stuff"- > useless garbage and probably full of viruses, or at least nasty bugs (their > perceptions, not mine). They would summarily have someone on their staff > shot who even LET the stuff in the door. And the guarantees you get with commercial software are any better? No warranty, no guarantee that the software will do anything at all or let alone be fit for the advertised purpose, nothing. By the way, if you're using this same virus-ridden, buggy free software that your MIS customers loathe to develop your product, how can you guarantee that the software you deliver doesn't suffer from the same maladies? If they knew you were using such software in your operations, would they still want to buy your product? > This does NOT appear to give me a good chance at making any decent living > (ie, lower middle class income or above) off the software. Software isn't the only thing that a computer professional is capable of producing! For a given task, the right hardware must be chosen, and installed. The right software must be chosen and installed. Users must be educated as to how to use the software. Software must be maintained. Software must be maintained. Software must be maintained. (The repetition is intentional.) Hardware must be monitored and maintained. As needs change, the above cycle repeats. What I want to know is why you would want more of a free lunch. You can get GNU software for the cost of making a copy, and yet you don't seem to want to give anything back. The beauty of sharing is that if everyone shares, EVERYONE gets more than they give. If I write a neat program and post it to the net, and N others do the same, I get N neat programs despite the fact I only wrote one. And so does everyone else. And this is a Bad Thing? To me, a bad thing is taking, and taking, and taking without giving anything in return. So the GPL forces your hand a little... ah well, there are alternatives to using FSF code. In my mind, the whole point of the FSF is to encourage software sharing, The idea to make software freely distributible so that more people can receive the benefits of the software itself, rather than money made from the sale of the software. Software is the end, not the means. A very different point of view than that of a software vendor. kyle jones <kjones@talos.uu.net> ...!uunet!talos!kjones
dupuy@cs.columbia.edu (Alexander Dupuy) (12/22/89)
In article <8300@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes:
1) If I release good, quality software, that meets a real need, that doesn't
need lots of support (I *said* quality*), with good documentation, then
why on earth would people buy it if they could get it free?
2) A lot of other people, such as 103% of all the MIS-heads in the world,
are going to lump it in with all that "public domain bulletin board stuff"-
useless garbage and probably full of viruses, or at least nasty bugs (their
perceptions, not mine). They would summarily have someone on their staff
shot who even LET the stuff in the door.
It seems to me that there's a bit of a contradiction lurking here - first Miles
says "why buy it if you can get it for free?" nad then says that there are lots
of people ("MIS-heads") who won't use anything they don't have to pay for.
The obvious resolution for this is to advertise the program at the going rates
(with different prices for different CPUs, of course) in the MIS magazines, and
let people copy it if they care to. I think you'd be suprised how many people
will pay for it just so that the MIS-heads are happy.
@alex
--
--
inet: dupuy@cs.columbia.edu
uucp: ...!rutgers!cs.columbia.edu!dupuypcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/23/89)
In article <dupuy.89Dec21131227@cs.columbia.edu> dupuy@cs.columbia.edu writes: In article <8300@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: 1) If I release good, quality software, that meets a real need, that doesn't need lots of support (I *said* quality*), with good documentation, then why on earth would people buy it if they could get it free? 2) A lot of other people, such as 103% of all the MIS-heads in the world, are going to lump it in with all that "public domain bulletin board stuff"- useless garbage and probably full of viruses, or at least nasty bugs (their perceptions, not mine). They would summarily have someone on their staff shot who even LET the stuff in the door. It seems to me that there's a bit of a contradiction lurking here - first Miles says "why buy it if you can get it for free?" nad then says that there are lots of people ("MIS-heads") who won't use anything they don't have to pay for. As I never cease to observe, the software you pay for is explicitly disclaimed against any claim of performance, and is typically buggy, full of funny things (e.g. the trojan horse in a SunOS daemon that was exploited by the Internet worm, or the backdoor in many BBSes, or the obnoxious serial number broadcasts of many commercial LAN/TCP packages), and even comes with reverse warranties, in which the customer pays for the privilege of indemnifying the supplier against all claims by third parties. Just as an example, somebody from an otherwise excellent company, ISC, beloved by MIS-heads, excused the very high price of their products with the alleged extra QA effort they put in their Unix product, beyond that already done by AT&T; but significantly their product does not seem to be very much less bug ridden than AT&T's, and most importantly their "warranty" does not reflect this "effort", only their prices does. The same company is a major example of software hoarding; they make you pay $795 for a single *binary* copy of the X11 libraries, which are 100% free, but not copylefted, high quality code, being constantly maintained and used by a hoarde of programmers, without in any way warranting anything about it. And if you want to apply publicly available upgrades, patches, extensions to the libraries, you cannot; you have to pay ISC for doing this for you, at their own pace, and again with no promises. The MIS-heads that work under the delusion that they are paying for the suppliers to stand behind their products while in the real world they are paying a lot of money for defect free tapes or floppies, and for insuring the supplier against trouble, should get some counselling... As a rational executive, knowing that I would have to bear all the risks, I'd rather get FSF software, whose source is freely available, which is used and maintained by a lot of competent people, that is freely discussed on the net, and that costs me nothing, rather than proprietary software that is equally not warranted against anything but is a black box about which the supplier has a monopoly on support, that it may even be incapable to exploit. The FSF actively encourages people to provide support and maintenance of its software for a fee, as they are not prepared to it themselves, because they prefer to do development than handholding. To me FSF software is then zero cost, *controllable* risk alternative for executives concerned about support and security. Commercial software is for those who don't care about either. -- Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uk
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (12/23/89)
> 1) If I release good, quality software, that meets a real need, that doesn't > need lots of support (I *said* quality*), with good documentation, then > why on earth would people buy it if they could get it free? This seems highly unlikely. Not to cast dispersions on your programming abilities, but even most *commercial* software needs support - and very *few* have good documentation. So it is unlikely that you will not be able to make some money at consultation. Second, there is nothing that *forces* people to pay you now. It only takes on person to buy the software so that it can be pirated - most people i talk to in day-to-day conversation do not pirate software because they feel that the programmers deserve compensation. > 2) A lot of other people, such as 103% of all the MIS-heads in the world, > are going to lump it in with all that "public domain bulletin board stuff"- > useless garbage and probably full of viruses, or at least nasty bugs (their > perceptions, not mine). They would summarily have someone on their staff > shot who even LET the stuff in the door. That is a problem indeed. The solution is not to stop contributing to the public domain, but to change the type and quality of software available in the public domain, thereby giving PD a better reputation. > This does NOT appear to give me a good chance at making any decent living > (ie, lower middle class income or above) off the software. If your statements were correct, then yes. However, i feel that your statements do not reflect the consensual hallucenation we call "reality" - ie. you're wrong, at least as far as my experience goes. > Now, people are complaining about Peter's not addressing certain arguments. > Well, these same people HAVE NOT yet addressed, to the best of my knowledge, > some of mine. Do you people realize what goes on in a software firm? There's > not just the cost of the staff (including funding future projects, not just > paying off old debts), but the cost of the building, legal stuff, accounting > stuff, marketing, distribution, phones, benefits (vacation, insurance, etc), > and so on, etc, etc, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I am aware of what it takes to run a company. My dad has done that same thing (trucking, not software) for the last 15+ years. However, it does not take a company to write good software. So, while a company may well need to charge ridiculous prices to support its expenditures and what it wants to do in the future, it seems that perhaps they should offer fewer benefits to their employees and use cheaper methods of doing what they are doing now....(using pd software, perhaps?)...and then they wouldn't have to charge so much. After all, like Frank Zappa, you guys are just in it for the money, right? > So be sure when you blithely talk of "recovering the cost of the > software development" that you realize not all of us want to hack > the night away for a year, just to give the world a birthday present. So don't. The problem here is that all the opinions are valid, assuming you assuming the same things that i do, or jay does, or whomever is making the case of the moment. However, as long as the answer to ridiculous prices for software is "it's life - deal with it", then the only reasonable answer i can give to critics of the GPL is "that's life - deal with it" or "put up or shut up!" or something equally as flippant (check my .sig :-) I haven't worked for a software development company yet this century. Howver, i know that some companies such as Sierra On-Line used to treat their programmers to extragavent parties and incredible benefits that were "barely coverd by the cost of their software". Do i feel sympathetic when people pirate their software? Doubtful. Maybe if they had spent a little more of their personal funds and a lot less of their company funds for these things, then i would sympathise more. > -Miles iain the flippant | You'll PAY To Know What You REALLY Think | jb3o@andrew.cmu.edu(INTERNET) | Your MIND Left Intentionally Blank | R746JB3O@cmccvb(BITNET) | SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS| disclaimer: anything I say may be wrong - I don't represent anyone but me
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (12/25/89)
raulmill@usc.edu (Raul Deluth Rockwell) writes: > In article <sZYpBNy00Ugy49zXtL@andrew.cmu.edu> > jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) writes: > > ;> > 1) If I release good, quality software, that meets a real need, > ;> > that doesn't need lots of support (I *said* quality*), with good > ;> > documentation, then why on earth would people buy it if they > ;> > could get it free? > > ;> This seems highly unlikely. Not to cast dispersions on your > ;> programming abilities, but even most *commercial* software needs > ;> support - and very *few* have good documentation. So it is > ;> unlikely that you will not be able to make some money at > ;> consultation. Second, there is nothing that *forces* people to pay > ;> you now. It only takes on person to buy the software so that it > ;> can be pirated - most people i talk to in day-to-day conversation > ;> do not pirate software because they feel that the programmers > ;> deserve compensation. > > So what I want to know is: where do these pirates get their support? > I mean, documentation is often harder to copy than the binaries. Well, the pirates i knew didn't *use* most of the software they had - they simply traded it. As for the pirates in the business world, one set of docs, an office copier or laser printer on the lan and instant docs for everyone who wants a copy..... > You can argue both sides of the fence, but in this case I'm not sure > that what you are saying is comprehensible. well, i comprehend it.....what don't you understand...send me mail...i'll try my best to make it comprehensible...(gee, i guess i even need to *support* my postings...mabye i should charge...) - iain
deven@rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine) (01/04/90)
On 23 Dec 89 10:28:41 GMT, jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) said: Jon> This seems highly unlikely. Not to cast dispersions on your Jon> programming abilities, but even most *commercial* software needs Jon> support - and very *few* have good documentation. Most emphatically, *commercial* software != _professional_ software. Much commercial software is the most poorly written crap I've seen, often worse than PD sw. Documentation? *sigh* Must be a lost art or something... Deven -- Deven T. Corzine Internet: deven@rpi.edu, shadow@pawl.rpi.edu Snail: 2151 12th St. Apt. 4, Troy, NY 12180 Phone: (518) 274-0327 Bitnet: deven@rpitsmts, userfxb6@rpitsmts UUCP: uunet!rpi!deven Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible.
eechris@cybaswan.UUCP (cp.jobling eleceng staff) (01/15/90)
From article <DEVEN.90Jan4062647@netserv2.rpi.edu>, by deven@rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine): > > On 23 Dec 89 10:28:41 GMT, jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) said: > > Jon> This seems highly unlikely. Not to cast dispersions on your > Jon> programming abilities, but even most *commercial* software needs > Jon> support - and very *few* have good documentation. > > Most emphatically, *commercial* software != _professional_ software. > > Much commercial software is the most poorly written crap I've seen, > often worse than PD sw. Documentation? *sigh* Must be a lost art or > something... > > Deven > -- > Deven T. Corzine Internet: deven@rpi.edu, shadow@pawl.rpi.edu > Snail: 2151 12th St. Apt. 4, Troy, NY 12180 Phone: (518) 274-0327 > Bitnet: deven@rpitsmts, userfxb6@rpitsmts UUCP: uunet!rpi!deven > Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible. -- ======================================================================== Chris Jobling, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, University College, Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK ------------------------------------------------------------------------
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (01/16/90)
eechris@cybaswan.UUCP (cp.jobling eleceng staff) writes: > From article <DEVEN.90Jan4062647@netserv2.rpi.edu>, by deven@rpi.edu (Deven T. Corzine): > > > > On 23 Dec 89 10:28:41 GMT, jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) said: > > > > Jon> This seems highly unlikely. Not to cast dispersions on your > > Jon> programming abilities, but even most *commercial* software needs > > Jon> support - and very *few* have good documentation. > > > > Most emphatically, *commercial* software != _professional_ software. > > > > Much commercial software is the most poorly written crap I've seen, > > often worse than PD sw. Documentation? *sigh* Must be a lost art or > > something... > > > > Deven > > -- > > Deven T. Corzine Internet: deven@rpi.edu, shadow@pawl.rpi.edu > > Snail: 2151 12th St. Apt. 4, Troy, NY 12180 Phone: (518) 274-0327 > > Bitnet: deven@rpitsmts, userfxb6@rpitsmts UUCP: uunet!rpi!deven > > Simple things should be simple and complex things should be possible. > -- > ======================================================================== > Chris Jobling, Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, > University College, Swansea, Singleton Park, Swansea SA2 8PP, UK > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ thank you Chris...i didn't see that when it was posted originally (if it ever was! - i don't know...i didn't see it!) Of course, while i realize that professional software and commercial software are not the same, the implication was that commercial software (ie. where someone (managers, publishers, ???) are getting more than their fare share) would be the "better software", given the choice between pd and commercial. So, when someone then claims that they'll be able to write a program that is so well done that they won't even need to support it, yet millions of normal people will be able to use it without naught but the documentation to go by, i have got to laugh. After all, i've seen well done programs, but none that didn't need support or better documentation or both. And i know that if someone did write a program that was that good and put it under the copyleft, then i'd sure as hell send 'em a donation (as much as i think it's worth) to recompense them. Would you? - iain "things to think about, late at night ..."