RE: Total Joy of Ownership

["Atul Chitnis" <achitnis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Not really.  One of the ways to make money in the GPL world is to
> solve a need for a particular entity and get paid for it;
> subsequently you can release the source code under GPL.  E.g. If
> someone wants to interface a Telex machine with Linux, I'd charge him
> for developing the software while reserving (and exercising) my right
> to release the source under GPL.

If that interface code becomes a key factor to the customer's product, he
would (like most custom jobs) probably insist on total transfer of rights,
screwing the GPL concept right into the ground.

I am not saying that it will happen *everytime*, but I wouldn't really be
surprised if it did.

> In general, though, you're quite correct: the GPL world is a service-
> rather than a product-oriented world, which is really as things should
> be (are my pinko panties showing? ;-)

Correct. The GPL kills the product concept.

And no, they ain't pink - more like bright red.... ;-)

> Afraid I disagree again.  If the GPL movement gains enough momentum,
> all software (except maybe some very specialised packages) will
> eventually become free.

Absolutes are, by definition, absolutes. GPL is an absolute (or at least
tries to be). It leaves no real scope for exceptions the way you state them.

> IMO it is better to aim for that objective
> and not keep compromising at each step, leading to dilution of both
> the message and the power of the GPL.

It therefore completely isolates the lone-wolf developer with a killer
product on his hands, since he has to eat, and his product is not a service.
A large company, with other financial sources, would be able to survive, but
a small team would die unless it has another revenue source - which is not
always the case.

> Been thinking about this since 1988, and I still don't see any reason
> to not adhere to the GPL.  And yes, I do write free software :-)

I'll give you a reason - food. A non-employed developer who has no services
to earn him money (which you agree is the only real way to earn money under
GPL) but with a product on his hands would have no chance of survival. And
if he has a great idea that he is unwilling to sell to a well-padded
corporation, the great idea will die with him.

In a strange way, GPL does not actually cater to the people RMS originally
had in mind - it caters to the ones he *opposed*, because only they can
afford to implement it!

Atul



- --------------------------------------------------------------------
For more information on Linux in India visit http://www.linux-india.org/
To unsubscribe from this list send an email to majordomo@xxxxxxxxx with the
words 'unsubscribe linux-india' (without the quotes) in the body of the
email.

------------------------------