Re: Free Software Company

[Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, Sep 13, 2000 at 02:07:38PM +0530, Radhakrishnan C V wrote:
> 
> There is an alternate business model, maybe unfamiliar to Arun, but a
> reality that is practiced by many companies around the world. This
> model while fulfilling its obligations to the client and the
> interests of its employees as well, do a service to the free software
> movement.
> 

I believe I'm quite familiar with the formula, I'm sympathetic to the
formula, but I don't agree with it's exclusionary views.

This is quite akin to the dilemma of the doctors in developed nations.
They could spend their time by specializing in cosmetic surgery and
make tons of money or go to some poor country and serve people.

It should be a choice left to the doctor - rather than saying that
all docs who do cosmetic surgery are our enemy.

> When a client contracts them to write a software solution, these
> companies insist for a clause that the client shall agree for GPL'ing
> the software once it is released. Many clients who subscribe to FSF
> ideals agree to this and free code becomes a reality even from a
> commercial enterprise without breaking any of the ground rules.

Possible, but unproven.

> 
> Arun need not pay for the development of such a software, but I dont
> think he will be resistant to use it for free.
>

Arun claims that GPL'ed software is not really free, because it can not be
used for some purposes - specifically to start a product company around
it. Arun finds that most consumer benefit as things stand today, comes
out of for-profit companies. By spending time on GPL'ed software you're
depriving consumers good software, that could've potentially come from
companies innovating on truely free (i.e non GPL'ed) software.

In more tangible and slightly dramatized terms, a thousand startups
motivated by money going after Microsoft's market can result in:

(a) Lots of bug free software
(b) A big pool of truely free (i.e. non GPL'ed software) on which 
    other startups can grow.
(c) (b) results in a balance of power that is unfavorable to a monopolist,
    because the barriers to entry are minimized. If (b) was GPL'ed software
    the barriers to entry would still be high, because the startup would
    be forced to reinvent the wheel.

on the other hand, I believe that GPL'ed efforts might succeed in 
hurting Microsoft, but may not provide a viable alternative to
the broader market.

As far as India as a developing nation is concerned, given the current
import/export situation, India has more to lose by software getting
commoditized and worthless by means of tools like GPL. It'd be good
for India if software continues to be expensive. The main problem with
India is that no one is making products.

See my next mail about a specific case study on how a multi billion
dollar industry is growing on BSD licensed software.

	-Arun