Post #218,271
8/8/05 9:11:07 PM
|
I was going to say something smart-ass here,
but I just couldn't bring myself to do it.
Sure I can.
JESUS WEPT MAN!
WTF is wrong with you?
How DARE you bitch about any restrictions on something given to you for free?
Especially when the restriction is the cornerstone of the reason it was given to you.
Someone worked hard on something. He/She/It/Whatever spent a huge amount of time and effort on it. HSIW has graciously allowed you to use it. You find a way to make it better, and you make money because it. HSIW required you to disclose what changes you made.
Done. Game over.
You don't like that business model, TFB!
You were expecting a free ride?
If that bit of change is the core deal breaker, then dammit, your company isn't that special and doesn't deserve to beat the "competition".
Either write the core software yourself, write your external modules in such a way that satisfies the license, create some value add that it is worth using you anyway, or get the F out of the business.
Why do I have to explain this to you?
|
Post #218,280
8/8/05 9:58:06 PM
|
No. You are not listening. Just like the rest.
Bah. Am I attacking your religion then?
You plainly do not see use of the source code as a feature that users - business users - might want. Advantage over competition is being cut right out of this, it WILL make GPLed software less attractive to business.
End of line.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,286
8/8/05 10:11:23 PM
|
Re: No. You are not listening. Just like the rest.
Bah. Am I attacking your religion then? Starting to seem like it, though. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #218,291
8/8/05 10:32:07 PM
|
Religion?
Not at all.
I use a variety of GPLed and other licensed software, happily.
And sure, most of the stuff I use is Perl modules, via CPAN, of which most (all?)
use the same license as perl, ie: GPL or Artistic. And the Artistic is one of
the most wide open abusable licenses in the world.
I think to core difference is that as a software USER, the GPL gives incredible
freedom and usefulness. And as a corporate programmer, for inhouse applications
that we use to run our business, we get the same freedom and usefulness.
But for software publishers, they hate it, for a reason.
And now, if the GPL3 limits Wep facing apps in the same way, there will be the
same emnity.
BUT MOST PROGRAMMERS WORK FOR COMPANIES AND PRODUCE THE SOFTWARE FOR INTERNAL
CONSUMPTION.
This is the same argument, over again, just like the beginning of GPL.
We have different goals.
You want to tweak the app, make a competitive difference in the app, and resell
usage of the app. You won't be allowed. Sucks to be you.
I want to tweak the app, modify it for internal usage, and give my company better tools to produce the output that our customers pay for. I'm allowed. Life is good.
Different goals.
The goal of the GPL is to allow other programmers the ability to read and learn
from common code, and to not allow people to sell code at a profit without allowing
their customers and other people to have access to the code.
Now some people who release their code under the GPL feel that web apps is violating
what they believe is appropriate use. So they are clarifying it.
Which is having a possible financial impact on you. Please do NOT bother whining
about acceptance of GPL software in businesses and the harm you see coming.
Total crock of shit.
Just run the numbers of corporate vs web app programmers who have no value add,
and I'm sure you'll discover the huge difference in numbers.
If a particular corp does both (and most do), and find value in the GPL for
internal usage, great. If they see a GPL3 app they want to modify for web facing,
again, their choice. Either release the changes, or track down the copyright
holders and pay for a one-off license usage off it. Pay the author for the
right, don't whine about they are not giving it away.
If you really want it, possibly need it, and it is so difficult that you can't
recode it yourself in a cost effective manner, then you obviously feel it has
great value. Pay the man!
And if it a case of a true community effort, with many people contributing, and
you can't get them to release the software under a different license, well, then,
YOU ARE NOT PART OF THE COMMUNITY AND THEY DO NOT WANT YOU TO GET ANY VALUE OUT
OF THEIR HARD CREATED SOFTWARE.
This is not religion, this is business. Yours, mine, and the GPL author's who now
is releasing something dual license. Or of the people who know exactly what they
are doing and do not want you using their software.
|
Post #218,297
8/8/05 10:47:31 PM
|
Listen carefully, now.
Business will get along just fine without mods to software they use on their own machines, without using the feature of source availability. Just lke they do now.
Further, I do in house scripting and user hooks to a proprietary app. My ox is not gored by GPL3. I have no personal stake. True, I would love it if there was a usable insurance/reinsurance app released under the GPL. But it ain't likely in the near future, bubbi.
What I worry about, what I am disappointed in, is that OS/GPL software won't be taken up more widely because of this thing. Developer demand (in house) will not be affected by uptake of GPLed software. It will hinder what could have been a glorious renaissance for our trade. Perhaps it won't kill it entirely, maybe it will.
Say what you like, GPLed software will be less attractive to businesses - after all most work is done in these businesses. It's targeted against business, NOT because the software is being changed and released without publishing the changes (it's not beiing distributed after all), but BECAUSE companies making changes turn profits.
So, go ahead and say it, just like the rest. YOu beleve that using the binaries is the same thing as distributing them.
Go ahead and say it. Brett Glass was right all along. I won't agree, but that's what everyone here has been saying.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,309
8/8/05 11:37:29 PM
|
A collective yawn
In a way, Brett Glass was correct, but he always managed to get frenzied on the subject. The truth is that there's really not a whole lot of money to be made by improving and packaging free software. The money to be made in selling improvements to open source software is pretty minimal. It's like trying to make money by selling programming languages - just not much of an economy there. And the ones that are in a position to use refinements to freely available software, are not necessarily the kind of companies that garner much sympathy (usually being monopolists and oligopolists).
Modifying MySQL to be faster isn't gonna make or break 99.9% of the web servicebased companies, especially not the starups. Most of the effort in web services must go into the domain specific applications. GPL software may be used in these instances, but it's unlikely that what makes money will ever see the light of day.
As a econ grad, I would note that most capitalists miss the point of free markets. Free markets don't exist for the purpose of allowing companies to make a profit. In the long term, all profits for any market are supposed to be zero. In that light, GPL software shouldn't be seen as anti-capitalist, but rather a response of one set of businesses to reduce their costs at the expense of another set of businesses to charge more for their product.
|
Post #218,315
8/9/05 1:01:56 AM
|
Long term = 0
However, short term allows for equitable return on invested captial and risk...both essentially "stock in trade" of the internet/software business model.
And tell me that OS software returns are anywhere near zaro yet...I don't see Bill Gates standing in line to get a new Hyundai anytime soon.
All Imric is pointing out is that GPL under the 2nd license had a shot at migrating into corporate in a very large way. Seeing that has made the rabid anti-establishment folks bring up V3.
Those that are saying "tough titties" are redefining some terms to try and justify this and are rationalizing why anyone using GPL source in an enterprise to turn a profit are idiots.
Thats not his point as I read it.
His point is simply that the new version of the GPL eliminates a niche that it had carved itself in corporate America and that is a sad thing for those that would like to see closed source, monolithic corporate software development houses have some realistic competition from smaller players.
At least I think thats his point. And it has validity in my mind.
The other side that says it is well within the rights of the publisher to do this is equally correct...but that has nothing to do with Imric's dismay at the change and his reasons for said dismay.
My 2 cents.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #218,320
8/9/05 1:15:34 AM
|
I don't think he's talking about selling mods . . .
. . to GPL'd software, but about Web services sites having competitive advantage by using proprietary mods on top of a GPL'd base.
The proposed GPLv3 specifically negates this advantage in favor of returning those mods to the community.
While he certainly has a point, that point is from a programmer's perspective, precisely the perspective that doomed the Dot.Com "economy". It really doesn't matter.
The success of a Web services business will depend on what it offers and how well it offers it. Coding is only peripheral because these are designer and marketing factors. The coding just has to be competent.
His fears are ghosts because design and presentation are everything. The guy with great presentation and so-so code will devestate the guy with poor presentation and wonderful code every time until Hell freezes over, and probably for a long time after.
If the guy with great design and presentation also has great code - he'll be a legend. Let the world download his code. Let him say, "Hey world, here's my code, secret of my success, come and get it!". It'll keep 'em from figuring out what he's really doing.
GPLv3 is not the end of the world.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
|
Post #218,330
8/9/05 7:00:45 AM
|
Correct - reselling not the point.
The success of a Web services business will depend on what it offers and how well it offers it. You make excellent points - however, I disagree with: "His fears are ghosts because design and presentation are everything". I've done most of my work for the last quarter-century modifying the guts of packages to customise things for SMBs. It's not just presentation. ANY mod made would have to be released. [link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,299
8/8/05 10:49:19 PM
|
I think I understand where you're coming from.
I haven't read the v3 draft, so I only have this thread to go on.
I understand your point - businesses won't want to take code under GPL v3 and customize it for their business advantage. So there'll be less business use, and Free Software won't progress as far as it would under v2 or similar less restrictive licenses.
Right?
But that's not what GPL code is for, as I understand it. If you ignore Stallman's views that are often spun as anti-business, I think what he really wants is a free/Free base of software that everyone can build upon. It's about freedom for the user - everything else is secondary. If people aren't reinventing sorting routines (or whatever), then a richer set of software will be available sooner for everyone's benefit.
Similarly, in your example, if everyone buys into the Free aspects of the v3 license, then everyone will benefit by having faster database queries, etc. And the software will be more appealing to work on as it will have more users and a more vibrant developer community. So new features and other improvements will be added to it quicker. Thus the original company in your example will benefit from a richer developer community for the product. Everyone benefits.
Your criticism, it seems to me, could be applied to all GPL v2 software. Why would a large corporation work on GPL software when shipping it to [link|http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/gpl-faq.html#InternalDistribution|an offsite contractor] of the corporation would be redistribution and thus require releasing the source? Aren't they giving up their competitive advantage? No, the corporation recognizes the benefits of using available source code and accepts the restrictions/freedom imposed by the license.
You have a lot more experience with this issue than me. But I think Stallman and the FSF is just continuing with their view that software should be Free. If you take GPL code and modify it, then you need to give the improvements back.
I think it'll work out, or people will find ways around the restrictions (without breaking the license). If not, there will be a lot of forking and/or a lot of code that will stay GPL v2. Either way, Free software will continue to thrive. Nobody knows, at this point, whether a v3 license would slow or accelerate the rate of uptake. (A lot may depend on what MS does with Longhorn and the XBox 360.)
My $0.02.
Cheers,
Scott.
|
Post #218,305
8/8/05 11:09:48 PM
|
Yeah. I think the 'coming fork' is a bad thing, though
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,306
8/8/05 11:10:42 PM
|
I think this is where you are going wrong
You plainly do not see use of the source code as a feature that users - business users - might want. Advantage over competition is being cut right out of this, it WILL make GPLed software less attractive to business. I'm pretty sure that everybody here understands that the right to use source code in any way they want is something that buisness want. What the rest of us feel is that the price of that is higher then the benefit. The function of the GPL is to encourage the free sharing of code, by making code available to you at the price of making your changes to that code available to others. The Web Services loophole lets companies get around that. That loophole makes it more desirable to buisness at the expense of making it less desirable to the people that back the GPL. Jay
|
Post #218,417
8/9/05 5:53:10 PM
|
I am not missing this point.
I am fully aware of this point.
I choose to poo-poo it.
It really isn't a big deal.
I honestly think you are reading way too much into: Web Services
You'll see.
I see your point, can you see mine? And Why I feel that way?
--
[link|mailto:greg@gregfolkert.net|greg],
[link|http://www.iwethey.org/ed_curry|REMEMBER ED CURRY!] @ iwethey
[image|http://www.danasoft.com/vipersig.jpg||||]
|
Post #218,420
8/9/05 6:13:59 PM
|
I see what you're saying
But it is false, Greg. Entirely false.
According to you [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218275|here] profit=distribution of binaries.
Your resentment, your reason that the 'spirit' of the GPL is being violated, is entirely anti-business.
You don't value the ability to change source as a feature of OSS, which, BTW, makes that feature about as useful as 'shared source'.
Running a binary is NOT distribution, unless said binary is downloaded and run locally.
As pointed out [link|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218397|here], even Richard Stallman USED to agree with me about this.
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
Post #218,423
8/9/05 6:15:33 PM
|
BTW, this discussion should really be moved to (new thread)
Created as new thread #218422 titled [link|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=218422|BTW, this discussion should really be moved to]
[link|http://www.runningworks.com|
] Imric's Tips for Living
- Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
- Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
- Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.
|
Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.
|
|
