[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]
Re: Re: [OT] Software Freedom
I don't get this. Your whole point in this mail was about GNu versus
proprietary software. While Arun's regular crib is about GNU vs other
Open Source licenses. Your whole point is about freedom vs restrictions.
Arun's points have always been GNU's freedom is not enough - we need more.
Every known vocal proponent of GPL have been unable to explain me one
Let me explain with an example:
X is a "good guy" who believes in making software and giving it away
with no restrictions other than a "thank you" note. His software
after some time comes to the attention of the capitalist "bad guy" Y,
who decides to make money out of it. Y takes the sources, makes minor
changes to it, packages it well and sells it as Y's own
software. With the resultant money, Y puts in more work into the
software and soon the result is really much better than the original
software - the difference being that you got to pay through your nose
Okay now let's take stock of the situation.
At the end of all this,
Y's customers - who are willing to pay(and pay a lot) feel
assured of buying the same software from Y, and the market dynamics
ensures that these paying customers get the features *they* want in
the software that they buy. Maybe not every new feature(but that is
X's software is still available for free. So all who don't want to pay
for the software, want to change the software to their own liking, or
want to distribute and make money out of the distribution - still can
do it. Of course, it is inferior now, but that's the price you pay
for such a system, where developers work in their own spare
time. Maybe in this whole time , more work has gone inside it and it
HAS become better.
You get the analogy - I am talking about the BSD style licenses here.
At the end of all this you have
customers of X + customers of Y reaping benefits from the
software. To heck with how they are benifiting(by paying or non-paying)
Now suppose X gives away his/her software under GPL. This ensures
that Y doesn't get
away with selling the software in a closed manner. Y decides to stay
away from it and develop similar software from scratch. okay maybe 1
out of 50 "Y" kind of folks decide to make opensource GPLed software
from the original X one.
So at the end, you have
customers of X + 2% of customers of Y reaping benifit from the
software. The rest 98% Y kinds of folks either duplicate the
effort, or maybe steal GPL code ;), or simply don't find developing
from scratch viable.
So tell me, in the larger issue of benefit to the community which
licence is better? Where am I going wrong with my logic?
> The GPL never says that making money is a sin. The GPL questions certain
But if you do make money, these same GNU folks leave no stone unturned
in castigating them. Look at RedHat, SuSE, VALinux etc.
sandipb @ bigfoot.com