IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New 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.
New 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]
New 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]
New 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.
 
 


     This has been bugging me. - (imric) - (72)
         It's the usual cack. - (pwhysall) - (13)
             Nonsense, Peter. - (imric) - (12)
                 I repeat. - (pwhysall) - (3)
                     I care about this, Peter. - (imric) - (2)
                         I don't doubt that you care. - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             It's true that it may be less of a problem - (imric)
                 the fact that you dont distribute your software - (boxley) - (1)
                     disgruntled >>--> Whistleblower laws. -NT - (imric)
                 Also, looky here: - (pwhysall) - (5)
                     ICLRPD (new thread) - (Steve Lowe)
                     Woo hoo. - (imric) - (2)
                         Remember, existing GPLv2 software will remain GPLv2 - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             ROFL - just posted that is a mitigating factor... - (imric)
                     He who controls the compiler... - (ChrisR)
         How is it ridiculous? - (JayMehaffey) - (36)
             Bravo. -NT - (folkert) - (23)
                 Guess you don't want to use application source - (imric) - (22)
                     Here is my grounds for poo-pooing your concern. - (folkert) - (6)
                         No. Wrong. And this is why - (imric) - (5)
                             Exactly the kind of response I expected. - (folkert) - (4)
                                 Horsecrap. - (imric) - (3)
                                     The binaries have not been distributed . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (2)
                                         And then GPL4. - (imric)
                                         Or most OSS used for web services won't be GPL3 -NT - (tonytib)
                     Another train of thought, I need to mention. - (folkert) - (5)
                         question, using go-global - (boxley) - (1)
                             I knowest not. -NT - (folkert)
                         Since MS software is licenced per user - (imric) - (2)
                             No... there is only one user. - (folkert) - (1)
                                 Again, ridiculous. - (imric)
                     Excuse me. I am a programmer. - (ben_tilly) - (8)
                         there is a place for all kinds - (boxley) - (1)
                             Perl's licensing situation is interesting - (ben_tilly)
                         Not at all, Ben. - (imric) - (5)
                             Perspective is all - (ChrisR) - (4)
                                 Pirates? - (imric) - (3)
                                     Pirate analogy is a different issue - (ChrisR) - (2)
                                         I disagree - (broomberg) - (1)
                                             The original instigation for FSF - (ChrisR)
             How is that a 'loophole' unless - (imric) - (11)
                 It's a loophole for the FSF. - (pwhysall) - (6)
                     http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=21 - (imric) - (2)
                         Your point? - (pwhysall) - (1)
                             I started this - (imric)
                     Business Interests - (ChrisR) - (2)
                         Most businesses... - (pwhysall)
                         Same difference, if the apps are GPLed. -NT - (imric)
                 It's contrary to the spirit of the GPL - (JayMehaffey) - (3)
                     Except, of course - (imric) - (2)
                         Not anti-Buisness - (JayMehaffey) - (1)
                             *shrug* same as BSD - (imric)
         Sorry Skip, you are lacking some significant clues - (ben_tilly) - (3)
             Ruining business? - (imric) - (2)
                 And you're still missing the point - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                     And that's what I did - I slept on it. - (imric)
         I was going to say something smart-ass here, - (broomberg) - (14)
             No. You are not listening. Just like the rest. - (imric) - (13)
                 Re: No. You are not listening. Just like the rest. - (bepatient)
                 Religion? - (broomberg) - (5)
                     Listen carefully, now. - (imric) - (4)
                         A collective yawn - (ChrisR) - (3)
                             Long term = 0 - (bepatient)
                             I don't think he's talking about selling mods . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1)
                                 Correct - reselling not the point. - (imric)
                 I think I understand where you're coming from. - (Another Scott) - (1)
                     Yeah. I think the 'coming fork' is a bad thing, though -NT - (imric)
                 I think this is where you are going wrong - (JayMehaffey)
                 I am not missing this point. - (folkert) - (2)
                     I see what you're saying - (imric) - (1)
                         BTW, this discussion should really be moved to (new thread) - (imric)
         Several things - (ubernostrum) - (1)
             More good points (new thread) - (imric)

Desperate, but not serious.
196 ms