theKompany's Shawn Gordon On The GPL 425
replicant_deckard writes "In this short but insightful essay Shawn Gordon, the founder of theKompany, explains why GPL doesn't work for software companies producing graphical and end-user friendly stuff. This reminds us that GPL has so far been useful just for infrastructure-level hacker stuff like operating systems, databases etc. " Of course, it's been used for end user - OpenOffice, GAIM, and other projects.
Wrong URL (Score:5, Informative)
And there's Mozilla... (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:And there's Mozilla... (Score:4, Insightful)
Why does everyone confuse the GPL (Score:4, Insightful)
It's still a copyright(?) license, just not nearly as restrictive as a traditional license.
I'm all for reasonably priced software, but giving it away for free often isn't.
Um, no.... (Score:5, Insightful)
-Baka!
Re:Um, no.... (Score:2)
This has been one of my concerns with the whole services model: The goal of (consumer) software development should be to make software that doesn't need services.
Software doesn't wear out or rust; paying a programmer the way you pay a plumber won't work.
- Steve
Re:Um, no.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Linux depends on relatively tech-oriented people to not only develop the software, but also to use it, and design the user interface according to what they need.
These are people that are usually intelligent enough to read the documentation and cope with an interface that might not be exactly intuitive. These are also people with their own subcultures, that find intuitive what the mainstream definitely does not: why does more read text? because it's more than cat. why less? because less is more! now let's learn 120 keyboard shortcuts so we can save 2 minutes a day of typing time!.
The "scratch an itch" model is not the best way to design a user interface for end-users. Even when an attempt is made, quite a lot of the techie users complain about the "dumbing down" of the interface, for good reason... they have different needs than the typical end-user. It follows that they will develop to meet their own needs.
Of course, attempts are made to develop "end-user-friendly" interfaces in open source programs, but the most successful of those UIs happen to be copies of someone else's design (KDE/GNOME/etc).
Designing a really good new GUI for end-users, be it for the OS or for some graphical/art app or something like that, requires input from non-tech-oriented users. People who are not likely to be using Linux in the first place, and who are also unlikely to become beta testers without a very good reason.
I can think only of two good reasons to get a LOT of users to provide input, assuming you have the interface designers to analyze the data: you're have enough marketing to convince people to volunteer (costs money), or you give them money (costs money).
The GPL-model tends to save on development costs, but I don't see how could it save on these expenses, and it obviously takes away a revenue source that covers for it (and since user-friendliness means less support, the new revenue source is in direct conflict with that goal). That would seem to indicate that the GPL is not appropiate for such applications, unless their UIs are imitations of propietary ones.
Well, There's Your Problem (Score:5, Funny)
I had RMS come to me on this product to make sure we weren't violating the GPL, and he admitted that we were not, but in the course of the conversation he proceeded to project onto the KDE project aspects of theKompany in a totally inappropriate fashion and was very negative about KDE in this regard.
He talked to RMS; always best avoided, at least without shielding. That's enough to throw anyone off their game.
THe Gardener
Re:Well, There's Your Problem (Score:5, Insightful)
There are a few sticky issues (like pre-release distribution of binaries only to outside contractors because you don't yet have a clean source release mechanism), but with proper planning, even these can be overcome.
As for selling GPL source, this is permitted, though I thought that there was some cap on price, based on reasonable distribution expenses (media, shipping, overhead, etc.)
Re:Well, There's Your Problem (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Well, There's Your Problem (Score:2)
If you write software and release under the GPL, you can charge whatever you want. It's only the recipients that are limited by in what they can charge for re-distributing.
I think one of the 'issues' with the GPL is that the 'free beer' part of it tends to be the dominant image in most people's minds. It would be nice if GPL'd software could be non-free-beer yet Software Libre. Unfortunately, if we did this, we would likely end up with a situation where monetary figures start trampling on the Libre aspect.
For example, consider if the GPL allowed recipients to charge. If they charged $10, this is reasonable to most people, even if the distributor got it for free beer. However, if they charged $300, this gets out of control, and starts trampling on idea that the GPL requires you to pass along the same rights.
If we could resolve this issue, I think a lot of people's worries about the GPL would go away. The most important part of the GPL is the 'free speech' part; the 'free beer' simply appears to be a necessary clause to help ensure the 'free speech' part.
You guys are both wrong (Score:4, Informative)
The clincher is you can't stop someone you sold a copy to from giving it away for no cost.
burris
Re:Well, There's Your Problem (Score:2, Funny)
The issue is not the license itself (Score:5, Insightful)
Greg
Re:The issue is not the license itself (Score:2, Interesting)
Or, if you're only going to comply with the minimum terms of the license, then expect people to pester you.
People have the right to a) call you and tell you they're dissatisfied, b) snow you under with written requests for the source, and c) post it up on some other website.
Re:The issue is not the license itself (Score:2)
If you wish to yell and be anal, then all i have to say is that you make the bed you sleep in. You do that to enough people and you find you may well prevent progress, not just under the GPL but under ANY open license.
A good point... (Score:4, Interesting)
From the article: What I find exceptionaly frustrating in these debates over "choice" and "freedom" is that they go one way only. As long as I choose the choice and freedom afforded by the GPL, then I'm ok, but if I choose a different style of choice and freedom (exercising my right to choose) then I now become evil.
Shawn does bring up a good point here. It seems that there are many ppl that don't truly understand the licensing models that are avialable out there, and are simply to closed minded to think that a model other than the GPL could be worth its weight it bits ;). Shawn states that "We sell one product that is GPL. On at least a weekly basis we get someone telling us that we have to give them the source code because it is GPL. Some of them become verbally violent and abusive when I point out that the GPL provides for us to charge for the source code, we just have to make it available, and this we have done. Some of these people even tried to hack our system to get the code because they thought it was their God-given right to have it."
I don't know about you, but if I was in his position, or if I was in charge of a company in that position, I would do the same. As much as the open source community hates is, when things go main stream, things change. Obviously linux will remain open, and a whole lot of very good products will remain open and GPL'd, but with these kind of problems plauging companies this early in the game, I would expect to see alot of others following suite.
-ryanRe:A good point... (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally, I don't think that choosing to use a different license than the GPL makes him evil. But it certainly does indicate that there is a particular community that he isn't a part of. And it is to be expected that some people who thought that he was a part of that community will feel that he has "betrayed" it. This is the way people act.
My personal feeling is that products released by his company will now need to live up to a higher standard, as I can no longer tell myself that by purchasing this product I am supporting the "GPL software community". And that this has been a significant part of the reason that I have been willing to buy applications from "The Kompany" that aren't that much better than were available for free elsewhere, and aren't that much cheaper than were available as finished products elsewhere. If my feelings are common, then he may have made a bad business decision. Perhaps. He didn't say what license he would choose instead. If he hasn't decided, then the announcement was definitely a bad business decision. If he has, then perhaps this is an ice-breaker announcement so that the news of the license won't be such a shock. And it may not have been a bad business decision. Depending.
Based on the tone of the article, I doubt that the new license will be any of the OSF approved licenses. But it might be, so perhaps it is best to suspend judgement until more facts are available. (However, in the interim I find that I don't plan any new purchases from The Kompany. But then I wasn't planning to anyway.)
.
Re:A good point... (Score:3, Insightful)
perhaps, but there is nothing wrong with that. this is precisely the type of software (easy to use, little or no support needed to install/operate) that is needed if Linux is ever to succeed on the desktop. in a way, it helps GPL/open source because it shows companies can survive making Linux software and it gives more applications to Linux.
bad business? hard to say. If they don't move as many copies in the beginning, it is not necessarily a bad business decision. all of the copies they move will be paid for instead of downloaded for free. with more money, they have more resources for development, which makes the potential quality improve, which makes the potential target market increase.
i think some combination of open and closed apps is going to have to be accepted by the community in order for Linux to gain wider acceptance.
you are probably correct about the way the community will react, but it's a shame. the community talks about having Linux conquer the desktop, but they get all fussy the moment anyone unvails a business model that involves profit.
Re:A good point... (Score:2, Insightful)
You bring up an interesting point. If others feel that theKompany has betrayed the community, and don't wish to purchase the products they are providing due to that betrayal. Then they have quite possibly made a bad business decision. I agree that a large portion of how the company will prevail depends on the license that they move forward with, and the way that they treat the community.
One thing that is very interesting about "for profit" linux based companies is the linux community. It really does factor into all of your decisions and what will fly with your customers. If a company like Microsoft were to change the licensing model they used, it really wouldn't matter all to much to the end users. However for an open-source GPL based company to go against that is another thing totally. I had not really though about that aspect of it until you posted your reply.
It will be interesting to see how theKompany fairs with this decision in the coming months. This decision may be a good "testing of the waters" for other such companies that are feeling the pain of the GPL in commercial applications.
-ryanRe:A good point... (Score:2)
> As much as the open source community hates is, when things go main stream, things change. Obviously linux will remain open, and a whole lot of very good products will remain open and GPL’d, but with these kind of problems plauging companies this early in the game, I would expect to see alot of others following suite.
Until the FSF and Gnome and others that care for freedom get GPL’d software to the point of competing effectively against proprietary software. Then we’ll see theKompany reluctantly GPL’ing or in any other way freeing their software, just as TrollTech did.
And after all usually the GPL is better for free software vendors... just look at Cygnus and the GNU tool chain, TrollTech and Qt, CodeWeavers and Wine, GNU Ada. Even the OpenGroup wanted to GPL X but couldn't because XFree politicians and software hoarders that actually contribute something back wouldn't accept it.
Re:A good point... (Score:2)
Look at Mandrake and the problems they are in? They are building a consumer application and not getting far. What is RedHat doing? Not focusing on end user applications, but on Server and Embedded. Redhat even said so that the desktop is not their focus.
Re:A good point... (Score:2, Interesting)
As illustrated by the anecdote you went on to quote, a lot of these people, especially the noisiest ones, don't even have a clue what the GPL involves. You can see it in 50% of the "GPL violation! stories on Slashdot, where it turns out that neither the submitter nor the editors understand what the GPL requires. (The other 50% are usually wrong for different reasons.) You can see it when Ximian charges for high-speed Red Carpet access, while leaving the existing free access in place, and multiple idiots argue that that's a GPL violation!
I think it's dawned on Shawn Gordon and others that there's no money to be made by courting that segment anyway, and spending piles of VC money (that he doesn't have anyway) to convince a lot of noisy brats that you "Get It" isn't a business plan.
What GPL says regarding source distribution (Score:5, Informative)
If the software in question was a derivative work of GPL software (as opposed to one they created from scratch), it looks like the GPL provides that "any third party" (not just a paying customer of the derivative work) can request source code and they can charge only the "cost of physically performing source distribution" for it.
I have no idea what a reasonable cost is -- realistically, the marginal cost of downloads of source for a company with a website would probably be pennies per MB. Asking for a check for a few cents to be mailed in (for instance, in exchange for a code to unlock an encrypted source download) would be a GPL-compliant and effective (though unsporting) way of limiting downloads. I would not be surprised if a $10 or more fee could not be assessed consistent with the GPL for shipping out a CD with source. In either case, though, the recipient of the source code would then be free to redistribute it via its own site.
**********
GPL Section 3:
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
* a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
* c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Re:What GPL says regarding source distribution (Score:2)
Well, that offer has to be transferrable whether the recipient intends to redistribute or not. There are many times when you want to avoid arbitrary third parties coming to you for code. For example, while you have no problem providing the necessary source to your customers, and don't care that they redistribute, you don't have the infrustructure to ship to Joe hacker.
Proper planning helps avoid this, of course, but it does have to be taken into account.
Re:What GPL says regarding source distribution (Score:2)
There are many development environments where source is a rather ephemeral thing, existing conveniently in one place only long enough to get compiled.
It gets worse when the Makefiles themselves have knowledge of the source code control system, whether ClearCase, CVS, RCS, or what have you.
Re:What GPL says regarding source distribution (Score:4, Insightful)
Close, but not quite. Read it again. When you sell the binary to someone, you have to include a copy of the source or a written offer to get the source. By third-party, they only mean that that offer has to be transferable. They certainly do _not_ mean that "if you sell the binary to ANYone, then you must provide the source to EVERYone."
Two views of software (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is that some want a kind of socialist utopia with regards to all software. They hate those who try to find a middle ground. It is almost like a religion, and often in religions apostates are hated far worse than the heathens. Those who want free to mean "public property" will never compromise. When these things make building software such a pain then of course they will drive people away.
The author of that essay's analogy with pro-life / pro-choice is probably apt. The problem in that movement is that even though most pro-life people are peaceful, there is a small minority who try to drive abortionists away with threats or harrassment. If equivalent things transpire in the free software movement then more and more people will stop producing the software.
While I am personally mixed about the free software movement, I think that the greatest threat to it could come from within rather than without. Zealots may end up being more of a problem than Microsoft.
Re:Two views of software (Score:2, Insightful)
Why do all these slashweenies think that it's OK to expect to be paid to screw widgets together but not OK to be paid to write software?
Because there ain't no way that slashweenies are going to get to use software without paying for it unless someone wrote it without being paid to write it.
That way the only software available would be written by people too rich to need to earn an income and people so useless as to be unemployable. Do you really want that? Wake up children, there's a real world out here.
Re:Two views of software (Score:2, Insightful)
Like I said, there's a real world out here.
Covalent and Apache (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Covalent and Apache (Score:2)
Volunteer projects vs. commercial products (Score:3, Insightful)
> OpenOffice, GAIM, and other projects.
All these projects do not aim to be profitable for their original developers. GPL might work for purely volunteer projects, but world has yet to witness sustainable business model for commercial companies developing GPLed products.
totally valid (Score:3, Insightful)
its _easy_ to say sell services . its pretty easy to say hack at your will and lets develop things as a community - it just doesnt hold water in a serious [read enterprise] environment. its very tough for everything to be projected as a service.
its surprising NOBODY thinks like an enduser, it really begs the question whether the open source people are techno-elitists. i know because i am one of them:) but after having so many sessions with my friends and helping them out - its almost stupid to think that selling services is enough and being noble in intent and academic in character is the right thing to do. people dont care for that, they want things to use, support in case of help and a smooth passage in unknown waters. NOTHING of which is provided even remotely by the warped and usually obtuse/convoluted software which come out from people like us [the oss community]
the GPL has a lot of problems. it does solve a lot. BUT it has its limitations. if OSS people are not so fanatical they might actually realize this and present an _easier_ option for most people.
think enterprise. you have a loose group of hackers , no documentation, all irritable and having no time [standard response: i am doing it in my free time, dont bug me] and you want a million dollar company to trust these software ?:) yes msft is evil, OSS coders rock but please lets be a little more _realisitic_ . fanaticism doesnt get us anywhere.
i mean , look at linus and his statement on the bk license. he is right...there is no pt in arguing about license because if the tool is right you use it .
a rant , flame me all you can......
linux will never rule the desktop unless they actually get out of this horrible mess and convolution that the licenses have come to
be. guess why people like windows? why people prefer aol? dammit , its easy to use. everybody is not a CS hacker, physicists need to use comps - they dont give a jackass that qt violates the license and debian wont include pine. PLEASE.
whatever...maybe i am too put off this morning...
v
Re:totally valid (Score:2)
Because that's what came on their machine, and they don't know anything else.
why people prefer aol?
Because if you have windows installed (i.e., if you bought a computer at a store and just used it) all you have to do is put a CD into the drive.
I'm not really sure why this is important to you. And yes, there are many competent professionals who don't care about the things that are important to hackers. So? It is to be expected that people whose goals are in different areas will find different things important. The physicist will care when he wants to hook up the instruments that he has designed to the computer. The lawyer will care when he wants to keep the text of his word processing document both private and accessible. etc.
Of course, this is based on the assumption that, e.g., Linux word processors will continue to improve. Or if not, that the instructional manuals will. E.g. Lyx probably isn't unreasonable, but the instructions have caused me to look elsewhere whenever I have looked at it. Once upon a time I was reasonably competent with roff, but that's so long ago that I don't quite remember it. Yet I haven't been able to pick up groff from the accessible documentation. Etc. So accessible and useful instruction manuals seem to be missing. (OTOH, I do seem to recall that there was a significant change between roff and troff, so it might be that the program itself has changed in ways that make it simultaneously less friendly to use and more powerful.)
.
Re:totally valid (Score:2, Insightful)
Who wants to buy service on their media player, web browser, or word processor. Most people, once they figure out how to use a program are very happy and content. (Unless they want more features) GUI applications should be fairly self contained and self sufficiant.
Only software that has lots of options that need to change, or software that has to have 100% reliablity is very good for the support model. But a word processor that should run 95% of the time, but it's ok if it crashes ( nobody dies ) and your work is mostly recoverable, then selling support doesn't work so well.
Re:totally valid (Score:2)
I guess I don't completely follow your reasoning. You do point out that different people have different goals. But then you defend that whiny essay as "totally valid" when all that I can tell Shawn Gordon is doing is complaining that RMS has different goals than he does.
Some folks write software and distribute it under GPL because they find it meaningful. In fact, I do that. My goal in doing this is not to help folks like Shawn make a living selling software. If he can, more power to him. If he can't, he should get a day job like I have.
Telling me that my distribution of software under the GPL is "a horrible mess and convolution of licenses" and won't lead to Linux on the desktop merely tells me that you don't know, or care, about the reasons that people like me release software under the GPL.
-Steve
"Communites" are their own worst enemies. (Score:3, Insightful)
And the reason for it is stated quite clearly in the article:
We sell one product that is GPL. On at least a weekly basis we get someone telling us that we have to give them the source code because it is GPL. Some of them become verbally violent and abusive when I point out that the GPL provides for us to charge for the source code, we just have to make it available, and this we have done. Some of these people even tried to hack our system to get the code because they thought it was their God-given right to have it. These are also typically the people who contribute nothing to the community.
While I think that the majority of any community is made up of decent, honest people who truly care about what they're involved with (yes i am that idealistic), there are always those marginal and VERY vocal few who MUST ruin the party for everyone else.
These people usually know just enough of what they're talking about to make them dangerous... the uneducated public believes them because they sound like they know what they're talking about. The business community listens because they're loud, vocal, and usually ready to do something stupid to get their point across.
It's because of people like this that GPLd products haven't gotten a big foothold in the commercial world. The thought that someone might actually CHARGE for their hard work and effort sends these people over the edge into a screaming, frothy frenzy of angry postings, DoS attacks, and god knows what other lame actions to 'punish' the bad guys who won't give them something for nothing. Never mind the fact that what they're doing is completely legal and good business... this self-righteous minority doesn't need messy facts to get in the way.
It's those marginal people that make me see red, and make companies head in the same direction as TheKompany has.. they won't bother with the GPL because the vocal, obnoxious minority makes it too hard for them to be profitable from their work. Frankly, I don't blame them for deciding not to GPL anything else one bit.
End Rant.
Should be Any Company that Sells Software (Score:5, Insightful)
However, if your company sells widgets and you maintain an in house software development team to manage your process/accounting software, then you are the perfect candidate for GPL. Outsource your software to the world and get more code review, more features, and more man hours spent on the product at a lower price... then you can dedicate yourself to what you do best, making widgets instead of overhead (software development).
Other GUI and cool software maintained strictly as software under the GPL is done for fun not profit.
It isn't rocket science.
And who will be selling software in ten years? (Score:3, Interesting)
Except for games which aren't really 100% software (mix of art and code), the consumer market doesn't exist or will not exist much longer for software-only solutions.
Corporations will always buy software... or will they? For niche applications, I think that proprietary software will always survive, but for generic software, I don't much of a future. As soon as the market is dominated by both free software (GPL and al.) and large corporations such as Microsoft, there isn't much room for growth anymore, not much room for new software companies.
It has been my experience that coders working inside companies that sell code have had very stressful lives recently and this isn't about to go away. Salaries might be high, but requirements are also very though.
So, not only is the market more difficult, but coders have a more stressful life... I just think that a lot of them will eventually switch to companies who make a living off something else (not software) and people who know the market well will not want to invest and start companies in the software industry.
In ten years, you'll have Microsoft, Oracle, IBM, a couple more... and everything else will be free software.
Want to bet?
Define "charging for source" (Score:3, Informative)
Yes, the GPL allows you to charge for the source, rather than offer it as a free download. But, IIRC you are only allowed to charge for your cost in producing the copy of the source. IE you can charge for the cost of burning a CD and shipping to the customer, but you can't offer the source for $500 and be compliant with the GPL.
Anyone else have more details on what he meant by this? If they're using GPL software, and then trying to charge for the source in order to make a profit off of distributing it, then the customers have a right to complain.
Re:Define "charging for source" (Score:4, Informative)
Does the GPL allow me to charge a fee for downloading the program from my site?
It's funny that people assume downloading from a company costs nothing. I can only guess that these are people who are unaware that most companies pay for whatever bandwidth they use, as opposed to the all-you-can-drink type access you get from home/dorm internet access.
- vin
Re:Define "charging for source" (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Define "charging for source" (Score:2)
"for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution"
Let's say that I only distribute via CD-ROM. If I pay a subcontractor $500 to reproduce the source code onto a cd-rom, then my cost is $500.
Re:Define "charging for source" (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Define "charging for source" (Score:2)
Re:Define "charging for source" (Score:2, Informative)
obligatory mirror (Score:2)
Let me know if it's a problem.
Re:obligatory mirror (Score:2)
In related news... (Score:4, Informative)
Red Hat does not own Linux, so it cannot charge for each copy it puts out in the way that Microsoft charges for Windows or Sun charges for Solaris.
"The only way we can make money in this business is in support," Mr Hoffmann told BBC News Online.
"That ranges from training down to system maintenance, deployment and integration with other applications.
"We focus on those customers who are able to pay the bill - the enterprises," he said.
Give me a company that sells support over one that sells software any day. The moment you put software in a box, its most important component -- the ability to be adapted and updated for security fixes and feature enhancements -- dies. Anyway, which is more successful, "theKompany" or RedHat?
There's also an interesting analysis [linuxtoday.com] on LinuxToday of theKompany's tactics and how they allegedly intentionally damage Free Software. Although I wouldn't take all the accusations at face value, there's certainly something worrying about the claims.
Re:In related news... (Score:3, Informative)
What, I shouldn't take all the accusations at face value just because they've been debunked as being completely wrong in a reply [linuxtoday.com]?
Such skeptics we have here... tsk tsk.
We should all *emulate* the Kompany! (Score:4, Insightful)
To Eat!
Contribute Free Software
The Kompany manages both, and yet people are getting all hot and bothered about the fact that they have software that you must pay for if you want it.
As long as the Kompany keeps making contributions to Free Software - they are alright by me.
Let's judge the Kompay an their efectivness in giving Free Software. If they happen to make a buck on the side, good! That money helps them make more Free Software.
Re:We should all *emulate* the Kompany! (Score:3, Insightful)
The author's company likes to GPL their system-level stuff, but thinks GPL doesn't work for end-user GUI apps. So the community gets some open-source system software. Same thing for Apple, which has open-source licensed the Darwin kernel, but doesn't open-source any of the GUI stuff. Are we supposed to be angry at them for giving us a state-of-the-art open-source microkernel for free?
Personally, I use a lot of open-source apps on a (mostly) closed-source OS (MacOS X). So for me, the setup is reversed. If open source is going to grow on the desktop, a great way to lure people in is to make it possible for them to use open-source apps on their closed-source systems. Fink, for instance, is doing a great job on this. It's not gonna work if you tell people they have to erase Windows off of their hard disk and undergo Hare Krishna training if they want to use open-source software at all, especially given how hard Linux is to install.
Gosh, somehow a lot of open-source software is getting written, both at the system level and at the application level. Where's the problem?
The problem is the whiners, zealots, and wannabes, who should get off Usenet and start writing some software.
Re:We should all *emulate* the Kompany! (Score:3, Insightful)
While that's true, I think that one of the best responses [linuxtoday.com] that I've seen to this so far has come from someone at LinuxToday [linuxtoday.com] He says:
The point is, that while software developers need to eat, that's not the community's problem. If a software developer can't eat, and that developer licensed his/her code under the GPL, that's not the GPL's fault. Do we know why the software developer isn't eating? Is it because the GPL prevents it or is it because the software developer doesn't understand the GPL enough to be able to make proper use of it?
I would think that releasing code under the GPL, and then making it harder than normal for people to get that code, just invites the kind of extra effort to deal with the myriads of people requesting the source code. The fact that you wasted time answering all of those questions isn't a consequence of using the GPL. It's a consequence of trying to use the GPL in a non-standard, albeit completely legitimate, way. Unless you're microsoft, there's a penalty for not conforming to standards. Should you be surprised when chosing to do so actually costs you something? In this case, the cost was spending too much time arguing instead of charging money for some value added service.
I think it's a cop out to say that they didn't make money because of the GPL. I think it's a way of deflecting attention on what might be the real issue: a poorly managed business.
GPL bogeyman (Score:2)
I certainly agree that it is (often) harder to make money with free-software licensing than with a proprietary model (although it's not true that you "can't put [free software] on a store shelf"). However, I am disappointed that he (apparently) tries to shield himself from criticism for abandoning free software by ostensibly attacking only the GPL, everyone's favorite bogeyman (citing unnamed "ambiguities," complaining that RMS doesn't like them, ...)
Re:GPL bogeyman (Score:2)
Short, but sweet. (Score:2)
Frankly, in many cases we as a community are spoiled. We've lived through the internet bubble of free services and negative cash flow companies having free websites, and now we can't accept the fact that all software and internet sites can be free. Some sites are simply too expensive to operate without subscriptions, and some software simply doesn't have the developer support to create a competitive Open Source version. For proof just look at the KOffice interview from earlier - creating Word filters is tough work that people simply don't want to do for free. Open Office, Mozilla, and many other Open Source software is created in part by paid programmers from big companies (AOL/TW, Red Hat, IBM, etc.). But certain software projects will inevitably not prove worth the time of those companies.
I think it is important to remember that not all commercial software companies are as bad as Microsoft. Commercial software (especially games) is a HUGE market, with a very successful business plan. We need more commercial developers for Linux - users will want to see their familiar software, games, etc. available for Linux before they decide to switch. Even the simple presence of more Linux software at your local Best Buy will get Joe Windows User to think about Linux if he's tired of Windows.
I think it's wonderful that I can build an entire system from nothing but Open Source software and have it perform a good majority of my daily work. Much of this software is worth purchasing, but we are lucky in that we have the choice with who and how we choose to support the software programmers. In the end, regardless of whether or not you like theKompany's software, the fact that they remain one of a few commercial software developers for Linux is important. Other companies will be looking to it as an example of how viable the future Linux market is. Loki has already stained Linux's reputation for commercial software.
I wish theKompany the best of luck in developing high quality commercial software.
well, duh (Score:2, Insightful)
But Gordon doesn't seem to understand the purpose of the GPL. He seems to think it's some mastermind plot to undermine Microsoft and commercial software vendors. He seems to think that the main aspiration of Linux is to become just like Windows and used by just the same class of people. But what the GPL really is is a way of giving users the tools to build the environments they find useful; that the software ends up costing nothing in many cases is just a side-effect.
And the fact that Gordon doesn't get it shows in TheKompany's products. Kapital just isn't competitive with Quicken or Money in terms of functionality or support by financial institutions, but it also fails miserably as a flexible, end-user programmable UNIX-style component.
Maybe Linux will become a mainstream desktop platform, and maybe eventually, there will be a significant market for Windows/MacOS style applications on it. But I think that's a long shot, and until that happens, I'll just get the real thing in the few cases where I just want a consumer-grade piece of software.
What? (Score:2)
... ok and which ones are owned by companies that are actually attempting to make money? Oh wait.... none of them? Thats what I thought.
Re:What? (Score:2)
Speaking of Mozilla, it's also a good example of a successful end-user app being developed by a major corporation.
GAIM probably isn't intended as a moneymaker, since its intent is to provide similar functionality to the AIM client which is given away for free. However, when a linux distro includes GAIM, it makes the distro as a whole more valuable. So it might nevertheless make financial sense to develop it.
Oh, and on an unrelated note, it's sad when the president of a company doesn't bother to spellcheck his public correspondences (and then proudly links to it from their homepage). If I'd come across this article as a
Re:What? (Score:2)
The statement wasn't about GPL and end-user apps. It was about GPL and end-user apps that can actually MAKE money.
"Supported by SUN" and "Will charge" are not success stories. A company cannot make a profit and at the same time release its software under the GPL. They don't mix. You won't make money. Even if you're lucky to make a significant buck with the first version, you won't make it very far after that before someone takes your source and sells it in the same market.
Free source (Score:2)
What Shawn said is correct. The GPL only requires you to provide the source code on request (for a reasonable fee). However, most companies realize that it's a whole lot less trouble to put the source up on a website than to deal with obnoxious people on the phone. This is an excellent example of that phenomenon, and though I agree that folks shouldn't try to hack into a server to get the source, people do have the right to vent their frustration over the phone. If theKCompany doesn't like it, they can easily address the problem.
I'm also curious why some of these folks didn't just write away for the code and post it on their own site. This is the best way to guarantee that code is easily available. Perhaps some did, and the "hackers" were just too lazy to google for it. Or maybe the "hackers" were just typical malicious types who would have gone after any company with every bit as much gusto.
Paradox (Score:2)
TWW
Background info (Score:2)
Re:Background info (Score:2)
Actually, I don't think that's it (I'm trying to figure out which one that they SELL is GPL as well...). He's specifically talking about SELLING something and demanding money to see the source code, but they've got download links to Korelib right their on their own page for it and no place to click "add to cart" for it...
he's right (Score:2)
this could too very easily be taken to sound like quality, business level software doesn't come in the form of a gpl. many times when i mention to people that i use free software, they get some look in their face like i'm using low quality tools. articles like this scare busnisess folks away from the gpl/free software.
Why selling support doesn't work (Score:5, Insightful)
Gawd, I wish every GPL advocate really understood the significance of this statement. If you give the software away and sell support, then the only way you make money is by getting enough people to pay for support. Logically, the more valuable the support is, the more likely people will pay for it. In other words, people will only pay for support if they need it. So what kind of support could a user want?
- New features or other code modifications, like customizations specific to your company
- Outsourcing of installation or deployment. That is, instead of installing the software on every computer in your company, you hire them to do it for you.
- Help with using the product itself.
Let's evaluate the problems with these on a case-by-case basis:- Because the user has access to the source code, it's possible for him to make the modifications himself. In fact, the GPL encourages this. So chances are, he won't pay someone else to do it.
- Only large corporations will be interested in this, and only if the corporation has an insufficient internal IT staff to do the job itself.
- The end-user will only pay for help using the program if he can't figure it out himself. However, the easier the software is to use, the less help the user will need. That's what the term "ease-of-use" is all about. So the developer has an incentive to make the software hard to use, to improve the likelihood that the customer will pay for support. In other words, the pay-for-support-only model is completely contrary to making the software easy to use! The ramifications of this are astounding. It results in a business model that encourages making the product difficult to use, but not too difficult that people won't use it.
The kicker is that because the revenue model is so weak, the company will charge more for support than if it also sold the software.Although I hate Microsoft as much as anyone else (I'm an OS/2 user, so I've been hating them longer than most Slashdot readers have), they have been trying to explain these issues to everyone. Of course, in typical Microsoftian style, all they end up doing is making themselves look stupid to anyone who isn't computer illiterate.
Re:Why selling support doesn't work (Score:2)
Not if he's some small ma'n'pa shop who knows how to sell antiques and would really like to inventory on a machine, but doesn't want to get a batch of source and try to figure out what the word compile means.
Only large corporations will be interested in this, and only if the corporation has an insufficient internal IT staff to do the job itself.
Large corporations are probably the only entity *with* an internal IT staff.
The end-user will only pay for help using the program if he can't figure it out himself. However, the easier the software is to use, the less help the user will need. That's what the term "ease-of-use" is all about. So the developer has an incentive to make the software hard to use, to improve the likelihood that the customer will pay for support. In other words, the pay-for-support-only model is completely contrary to making the software easy to use! The ramifications of this are astounding. It results in a business model that encourages making the product difficult to use, but not too difficult that people won't use it.
This is definitely one way to look at it, and I don't really have an argument against that because I think some people really do operate that way. However, working in one of those corporate development positions I can speak directly to my users. Even with this much involved, we still have to take time after each delivery to explain what's changed in this version and what's new. Not because we made it difficult for them to use, that wastes alot of our time, but because they haven't seen this before and the new features they wanted in this release aren't going to be sticking out at them like the Paperclip (because our users aren't stupid enough to request a paperclip...)
Selling support to a large corporation probably isn't going to work, but selling a corporation on the idea that they wouldn't need a large internal support unit may.
So -- he chose the wrong license. (Score:5, Insightful)
If this product is a derivative work, then they were forced to use GPL. In that case, charging high reproduction fees to create a barrier to users (as Mr. Gordon frankly admits he is doing) is a violation at the very least of the spirit of GPL, if not a legal violation. It breaks the understanding under which he was granted the right to use the original work by the original authors. In this case he has no right to complain about people attempting to find clever ways to get their hands on source code without paying, since he would be doing exactly the same thing.
Strange argument against free (as in beer)software (Score:3, Interesting)
Look at it this way. I can send 1,000 copies to a distributor who will put it on store shelves around the world. People will walk in, pick it up and buy it. Now let's say that the software was free (as in cost) and I just sell services. Well, now I can't put it on a store shelf and for every customer; I have to go and hunt them down somehow and persuade them to use our free software and then pay us for support -- but they should only really need support if our software is hard to use or poorly designed, which isn't the case or our objective.
Now this is an argument, but he doesn't adress the most common case, namely:
You package the thing with manuals and charge for it (with 30 days free support),
but also provide a free download at your site.
Now send it to the distributor.
This is how most distros work, and Redhat seems to be doing fine. Even I was surprised when I saw SuSE Linux on the shelf at the store Åhlens
(~Walmart, but not cheap) here in Sweden last christmas, that's good market penetration!
But he does have a point: Consumer-oriented products shouldn't need support.
I think the problem isn't politics. (Score:2, Insightful)
Userfriendliness is another issue (I fail to see MS Windows or clones as userfriendly), but that's another matter.
Here's the thing - many of the best people working on Linux projects are command line commandos. They don't *need* sexy, user-friendly interfaces.
The people who do may be journeyman coders, but they tend not to have the experience necessary to lead large groups to the end of a project.
I do think we'll continue seeing vast increases in graphic beauty and userfriendliness as more people use Linux. Look what we've already done.. E!, KDE, etc. It's a far cry from some of the things being distributed with earlier distributions.
Anwyay, in the end, I think people will wise up and start using the best tool for the job. Want a low cost decently stable server? Use Linux. Want the latest and greatest games? Install MS Windows (Or even better, learn how to code, how to write docs, or how to test things, and hop onboard a Linux project.
Proprietary software companies (in general)... (Score:3, Insightful)
It seems Mr. Gordon's complaint with the GPL is similar in nature (but not quite the same in "spirit") to Microsoft's - "If someone releases software under the GPL, the license says that if you redistribute something made with it, you have to also make your changes available under the GPL, and, gosh, that's just too much hassle. No fair." (more or less).
That's what the GPL is FOR. Now, don't misunderstand - I'm GLAD to see (believe it or not) proprietary software available as a choice, whether I would choose to buy any or not. I also have no problem with a company choosing to avoid GPL-licensed code because they don't want to deal with the hassle of contributing back to the community in the manner that the GPL requires. I further sympathise and agree with Mr Gordon's characterization of the handful of loud, self-appointed "GPL Zealots" that tarnish the reputation of the more numerous but quieter "normal" people who just happen to agree with the GPL's philosophy.
What I DO dislike is hearing companies' ever more frequent complaints about not having permission to do whatever they want, at whatever price they want, with GPL-licensed source code. First MS, now TheKompany (and surely I've missed one or two others in between, didn't Caldera or someone from Mandrake or Red Hat say something similar a while back? I forget...). It seems obvious to me that if a programmer offers original source code under the GPL license, it's BECAUSE they don't want their work to be capitalized on without the "community" benefiting at the same time. In that respect, the writing in this opinion piece might have been "I went outside while it was raining, and I discovered that I got all wet, and people who I visited sometimes got unreasonably upset when I dripped all over their floor, and some of them got irrationally upset when I told them I wouldn't dry myself off before coming in if they didn't supply the towel for it themselves. Therefore, I felt compelled to write another editorial explaining why rain is bad for people who go outside..."
Please excuse the touch of "rant" in this post. In fairness I should emphasize that I can't fault TheKompany themselves too much, as they DO seem to contribute in one way or another back to the community (e.g. the GPL'd version of Kivio in the KOffice CVS), and even their "proprietary" license seems pretty darn reasonable as far as proprietary licenses go, but the continued complaints by proprietary software companies in general that the GPL doesn't let them redistribute proprietary, modified versions with restrictions (and typically at the same price as completely proprietary software developed from scratch, it would seem) and the implication that follows that it is therefore somehow "unfair" or unduly burdensome is just getting on my nerves...
(On the plus side, at least the complaints reaffirm that if you don't want your software to be "hijacked" for the profit of proprietary software companies [which here I define as companies whose business model is "charge for permission to use software"], the GPL will keep them away...[and for the moderators reflexively reaching for the 'flamebait' button, I reiterate - I'm not accusing TheKompany, specifically, of doing this])
Re:Proprietary software companies (in general)... (Score:2)
This isn't even close to the "don't touch GPL code" philosophy of most proprietary vendors. I think the significant point he raises is that the zealotry of some GPL bigots has pushed theKompany to the point that, although they've used the GPL in the past, they're unlikely to do so again.
In a sense, the GPL bigots (a small and vocal subset of GPL supporters) have managed to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory. They've subjected a GPL friendly vendor to enough abuse that they're turning their backs on the GPL.
Does he read his own writing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Um... sorry guy, but Microsoft gets this complaint EVERY DAY OF THE YEAR. Hell, they get that from much larger and more influential commers than poor little RMS.
As for RMS, if I had a dime for everyone who had a troubling conversation with RMS, I'd probably be providing dimes to the US Treasury... they would be out. RMS is a fanatic. This is neither good nor bad, really. He has done a lot of good because he cares a heck of a lot more than he should. He's also refused to back down from some ideas which are pathalogically idealistic, and that has caused any number of problems. In the end, I think we should all reality-check Open Source against RMS just to keep that perspective, but he should never be thought of as the ultimate voice of anything (including, oddly, his GPL).
The GPL is an amazingly good tool for protecting free software AS free software. If that's not your goal, you probably chose the wrong license
Sorry man.
Fork It (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the reason that the price of GPL software tends to zero.
GPL Compliance: The source will be "available" (Score:2)
(with apologies to Douglas Adams)
GPL great for others, but shouldn't apply to me (Score:2, Interesting)
His argument is so hilarious. GPL is fine for others, but I want to make money. I love the fact that I can base my code on free stuff and run it on a free platform, but I want people to pay for my stuff. sheesh.
How's this: The OS should be free, but the device drivers should cost money. no, wait, the OS and drivers should be free but (insert your money making scheme here).
He's a hypocrit IMHO.
Why do GPL stuff? (Score:2)
At the core, they are selling code written by others without compensation.
In this circumstance, there are two ways to go. First, find BSD licensed code to steal from. This is still bad behavior, but it is more legitimate bad behavior, the original authors by using BSD license have consented to the bad behavior.
Also, how much of what they make use of from the GPL community is LGPLed? That is a very good license for libraries that don't mind commercial products based on them, yet want to protect the freedom of the bits they did themselves. This would fit perfectly with the Kompany's goals without bastardizing themselves.
On a side note, how does QTs licensing play into commercial products like this? I guess they can still claim the work is GPLed and therefore they can ignore the commercial license of qt, but in practice could Trolltech have legal grounding to punish them for being a commercial product without paying commercial fees?
I think qt's license is a very big reason why a lot of companies push gnome more than KDE. Even though they have to dance around the GPL with Gnome, at least they don't have to worry about Qt's license on top of everything else. The result I see is that very good free software is available for KDE (qt's license is perfectly fine for free software), but some big players mostly ignore KDE if they can..
What is the value of free software? (Score:2, Insightful)
my understanding of the Free Software Movement's origins are that RMS and colleagues were frustrated that they had no access to source code--thus they couldn't fix problems with software they used at work or school, even software which had been donated. they couldn't fix, learn from, couldn't write better versions, couldn't help their neighbors etc. anybody who's used commercial software should recognize this limitation. the four freedoms embodied in the FSM are about this--the ability to study other people's code, do something with it, change it, fix it.
if the kompany doesn't make source code freely available for their products (any of their products) then you, as a person who may be a programmer, are dependent on them to fix bugs, make changes, etc. you also can't learn from what they've done and come up with something better--something which may not even be a competing product. this type of relationship is frustrating to those of us who are forced to use commercial software packages that are buggy or limited in some way.
i think the question of the value of the software then becomes very difficult to place. software as a commercial product is valued based on its apparent usefulness, dominance in the marketplace, uniqueness, etc. i don't have proof, but i suspect that software is rarely just valued directly in relation to the cost to produce it. companies sell products at a loss to gain market share (thus opening up a wider market for other products), or in other cases, resell products they bought from another company who was already selling it, and where the development cost was either recouped or written off.
the FSM suggests that the value of a software package is not tied to the cost to produce it. this is implicit because as we all know, if the source code is made freely available (or at low cost) and documents are available, savvy users can roll their own distribution and share it, reducing the income of the original provider to (in principle) zero. so the question i have is then, what is the value of a piece of software, if we believe in the freedoms of the FSM?
p*ya*ya
He Doesn't Understand the Value of Freedom (Score:3, Insightful)
Contrary to popular myth many, probably most, free software users will pay for software if they see a clear benefit in it. However, there are certain things free software gives a person that many of us are not willing to sacrifice, whether the product is free-as-in-beer (like Blender was) or not.
One of these, and perhaps one of the greatest values of free software (although it has many, mind you), is that one will not be left with an orphaned product should a company go under.
I have hundreds of hours invested in Blender animations that are now essentially worthless (or soon to be, as soon as the binary I have stops working with current libraries and the older libraries become harder to get, and harder to make work). I will never put myself in that position again, which means I will never use any of the Kompany's products, with the possible exception of the one they GPLed. Period.
This isn't because I have some philisophical ax to grind against proprietary software, it is because I've been burned once and will not be burned again. It is because my data is far more valuable than the software I use and the hardware I use it on, combined. It is because companies do not necessarilly last, particularly in these post-boom times with the Microsoft Monopoly hovering over us all and likely to get away with the corporate equivelent of assault and murder with little more than a slap on the wrist, thanks the Bush Junior's DOJ snatching defeat out of the jaws of victory.
There are other models for making a profit on software and keeping the code free that he didn't address and likely hasn't explored. One is the service model, which he declines to use because it "doesn't fit" his business model. Fine. There are other approaches.
One, which fits any software product which improves and adds features over time is to "time shift" the freedom. The author of Ghostscript understood this well, in releasing a free version of his software about a year behind the non-free version. Want the latest drivers and features? Pay up (if you're using it for commercial use). Want the free version? That's okay too, just expect to wait about a year for the same features the paying customers are enjoying today.
This approach would at least insure their paying customers against the possible orphanage of their product (and is an approach Trolltech has used, with a little twist, quite successfully...indeed it makes their commercial product far more appealing than any of their competitors for that reason alone).
If blender had done that their animation community wouldn't have died with the company a week ago. If the Kompany were to do that, I would consider using their products.
But, having learned the lesson RMS, for all his abrasiveness, has been trying to teach us for the last several years the hard way, I will not be using any product that results in my data, my work, loosing its value and usefulness simply because the software seller goes out of business.
Which means the Kompany will never have me as a customer, and that is a shame, because contrary to popular myth about free software and GNU/Linux users, I do pay for software, as evidenced by a shelf full of commercial Linux apps, from Applixware to Mainactor to various and sundry Linux games.
He simply doesn't get it, and if he doesn't figure it out it will likely cost him his business as a result. And then his customers will be SOL, something they wouldn't have been had they insisted on some insurance
Re:So Why Use It (Score:2, Insightful)
I think Shawn Gordon is right in saying that for a user-friendly piece of software there is no money to be made in services because the goal of the software is to be easy to use. If they meet that goal, no one needs the service.
Fight FUD with FUD? (Score:2, Insightful)
It isn't FUD whatsoever : To use GPLd code you might apply the GPL license to your own code as well. That is a viral license, and just because you might not like the term viral doesn't mean it isn't so. Again, to each his own: And to some they think that's a great idea, but then there are people who seem offended when someone points out the reality so they cry FUD incorrectly.
They want to make sure that their idea will be used to benefit others, not hidden away in someone's proprietary software to fatten someone else's wallet. That would be absurd.
If someone incorporates your code, in no way do they make what you've actually created disappear or lesser (it doesn't matter how many people incorporate zlib in proprietary programs, you can still grab it from zlib.org), but instead the GPL is saying "here's what I've done....but now you have to give me what you've done as well.". It ISN'T protecting the original work because there is nothing anybody can do to degrade the original work. Instead it's claiming ownership over derived works as well. The real FUD is the perpetual claims of GPLers that somehow they would be deprived of their code is someone else used it in a commercial app.
Re:Fight FUD with FUD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Incorrect. If all you want to do is use the code, you are under no obligation to give anyone the source code. You can even modify the source to fit whatever needs you might need and nobody can force you to release those changes. It's only when you try to distribute your modified version of the program that you are also forced to include the source code.
Instead it's claiming ownership over derived works as well.
As our current copyright laws already enforce...
The real FUD is the perpetual claims of GPLers that somehow they would be deprived of their code is someone else used it in a commercial app.
You don't get it. What we are being deprived of are the improvements to our code, which is all we are really asking for in return for the use of our code.
Re:Fight FUD with FUD? (Score:2, Insightful)
The stealing code comment is just pathetic. Yes every day I'm deviously scouring through BSD code laughing at how I'm taking advantage of them...oh wait : They are giving away that code. They WANT it to be used in whatever fashion you want.
Re:So Why Use It (Score:5, Insightful)
A programmer who use the GPL see it as a tool for distributing code that he wants to write. The programmer knows that no one will be able to do more with the software than he can. Since he doesn't care about commercial concepts like support and ease-of-use, the GPL allows him to do only what he wants to do with the code, and doesn't give him any incentive to do more. How many times have you emailed a developer of a GPL'd program for some feature or help, and gotten a reply along the lines of, "You have the source code, you figure it out!"?
Frankly, I like the idea. Without the GPL, a lot of programmers who don't want to worry about support and end users constantly bugging them for new features would never have released their programs at all.
Re:So Why Use It (Score:3, Interesting)
Never. Not even once, and I've been on both sides of that conversation, many times. I don't buy your argument that a programmer of GPL'd software has no incentive to support or improve the program beyond what they personally see fit to do. I get a huge kick out of the fact that people use and enjoy my program [kde.org], and I've made a large number of changes based on user feedback. I think the same can be said for many (if not most) GPL'd programs, including all of KDE.
Re:So Why Use It (Score:2)
Interesting you ask this. Anyone who's written to me asking questions about my software always gets their question answered. I take pride whenever someone asks me a question, because to me, it means that I have another person using my software. It's definitely an ego thing, and might not scale if I got dozens of people asking me questions every day, but for now, it works, and I like to think my users are happy.
Oh, and if someone mailed me with unreasonable requests, I would never say anything along the lines of "use the source luke", but probably more along the lines of "That isn't a high priority for me" or "That would not fit well within the scope of the program", both of which would be entirely accurate statements.
Re:So Why Use It (Score:3, Interesting)
If I wanted to start my own company and write software commercially, I most likely wouldn't use the GPL. I would probably release various parts of the code because I believe in Open Source, but I do not believe the GPL alone is commercially viable long term. Yes, there are companys that are starting to make a profit selling GPL'd software, but most of the revenue comes from services, not the actual sale of the software.
To sum it all up, the GPL is a great licence that is best suited for "part time" projects. It has proven that the community can come togethor and write some excellent software, BUT it is not the licence-to-end-all-licences. the Unix mantra of the right tool for the job applies here- use the right licence for the job at hand.
Why you make it usable... (Score:2)
Remember that a corporation doesn't pay for software under the assumption that it's going to be a pain to use and buggy. They assume it's going to work well and yet they still pay for support contracts as insurance. It's risk aversion and has almost nothing to do with the inherent quality of the product. I worked at one company where they actually forced Microsoft to sell them copies of IE (yes, SELL, for money) so that they could feel they had some leverage in seeking support if something went wrong with it. Corporations will always buy support contracts for the same reason that people get health insurance. You don't buy health insurance because you plan to get sick, you do it just in case.
Now, assuming that corporations are going to get support contracts anyhow, the underyling financial model of support contracts becomes important. If you pay me $50 and it costs me $25/hour to support any problems you have, then I need to keep it under 2 hours in support calls or I'm losing money. Companies don't want to get into open ended time and materials contracts, so you have a strong incentive to get rid of bugs because they cost you money.
Having said all that, I grant that if you could write a piece of software that was:
1) instantly intuitive for everybody to learn and use
2) completely bug free
Then the service models would cease to be viable. Furthermore, I'd personally open a church to honor your name since you are clearly a God of some sort.
Re:GPL\GNU?? (Score:2)
Re:He doesnt get it (Score:3)
He hasn't taken away any freedom. He just hasn't given you anything.
You want freedom not his crappy software. Well, then don't buy it. Problem solved.
- Steve
Re:He doesnt get it (Score:2, Interesting)
He is taking away the freedom of his users to user/modify/share the software. This is clearly opposite to the way the FSF sees the world. He is clearly doing something that the Free Software community thinks is wrong and that the GPL was written to prevent. So he shouldnt complain that the GPL is making is life harder because that's exactly what is was written to do. Make as much code Free as possible. His software is useless to me.. I dont want it. What worries me is that its availability will discourage people from making a good free replacement.. That's how he is taking away my freedom...
My main point is that his business model is exactly what the GPL is there to prevent, so its normal that he doesnt like it... But many people dont seem to get that. The FSF wants all proprietary software to away! And yes, that will piss off proprietary software vendors!
Sophistry (Score:2)
No, this is not nearly the same. In neither case is using my hardwork a RIGHT for you. It's neither equivalent to freedom of speech (a so-called natural right) nor is it like the "right to work" that some courts have found to be valid and can be said to be necessary for survival. You are perfectly capable of doing without my software and the conditions for its use are quite reasonable and germane to my software. You are simply being asked to make a choice, a choice that is not so different then choosing to pay for a carpenter's handiwork or not get it at all.
In any event, if you wish to claim that you are somehow entitled to do whatever you want with your computer, then with your same reasoning the GPL is absurd on its face as it demands that you share your modifications. Even if the intellectual property framework were torn down, this simply does NOT come along with the package and is quite contrary to even that notion of freedom. Nor does a world free of copy prevention techniques, and so on...
Re:He doesnt get it (Score:2)
C-X C-S
Re:He doesnt get it (Score:2)
This confusion and retarded statement is a direct result of RMS and his dumbfuckery using recursive definitions. The free as in beer free as in speech crap has caused more needless confusion than LSD. The GPL goes into the fact you can charge money for your source code. The provisions for the "free" software are source code must be available. It doesn't say I you can't require someone to reimburse you for your work.
Re:He doesnt get it (Score:2)
Re:He doesnt get it (Score:4, Funny)
If he means, "You don't get our GPL'ed product with source until you pay us $50," that's perfectly OK. If he means, "You get the binary for $50, and the source will cost you $5000 extra," then that's not okay under the GPL.
In the latter case, Windows XP perfectly and completely fulfills the terms of the GPL. After all, if you were able to scrape together $300 billion, I'm sure Bill Gates would be more than happy to sell you a copy of the source code with unlimited distribution rights. And then come over to wax your Ferarri.
Re:Article points out problems to be addressed (Score:3, Insightful)
Hrm? (Score:2)
I thought Captiolism was a free market system, not reselling others' work? Captiolism doesn't mean disrespecting author/owner rights.
Re:What we really need (Score:2, Informative)
Red Hat's boxed distros, just as an example, fulfill your requirements exactly. The only real difference is that RHAT ships source CDs instead of making you download it off the Net.
Or have I missed the point of your post?