Date: Fri, 25 Aug 2000 01:20:07 -0400 From: "Thomas M. Sommers" <tms2@mail.ptd.net> To: Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org> Cc: Rahul Siddharthan <rsidd@physics.iisc.ernet.in>, freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: The GPL is really the PPL (Was: Sun's web site) Message-ID: <39A60207.4F8C6829@mail.ptd.net> References: <20000816221119.B7276@physics.iisc.ernet.in> <4.3.2.7.2.20000817232139.04cf0840@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000818064620.00dbc670@localhost> <4.3.2.7.2.20000819181556.04cf48c0@localhost>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Brett Glass wrote: > > At 03:16 PM 8/19/2000, Thomas M. Sommers wrote: > > >> > If they use the GPL, they can > >> >be pretty sure that no one else will make one, either. Management has a > >> >fiduciary duty to the shareholders. If they give away their source, and > >> >some other company makes a killing with it, > >> > >> Then they are hurt not one bit. > > > >A greedy shyster will argue that management breached its duty because it > >should have know that a killing could be made, but instead gave away the > >ability to make it. > > That's actually a legitmate argument, and not that of a shyster by > any means. In any event,the horse is out of the barn at that point; > the hurt has already happened. If someone DOES make a killing with > the softare, it does not hurt the company any more than it has > already been hurt by its own foolishness. My point was that if another company uses the source to make a profit, that is good evidence that the original company could have made a profit, too, and that management erred. On the other hand, if no other company can make a profit, it will be harder to prove an error of judgment by management. > >> Not true. The company is undermining its ENTIRE INDUSTRY by using the > >> GPL. It's sort of like saying, "Yes, I killed myself, but at least I > >> hurt my competitor a little." > > > >But they can't get sued for that. > > Yes, actually, they can. It falls under many states' "Unfair business > practices" statutes. And if the GPLed software monopolizes the market > (as it has the market for UNIX C compilers), antitrust law may kick > in. I was talking about stockholder derivative suits. Anyway, a company could be liable for the actions you mentioned even if it put its source in the public domain, or used a BSD license. That problem has nothing to do with the GPL. > >I understand your dislike of the GPL, and even agree with it up to a > >point (really, not as in "Up to a point, Lord Copper."). But that is > >irrelevant to the point I was trying to make. > > Your point, as I recall, was that you thought the PPL was appealing > to some foolish people within corporations because they have been led > to believe that the "poison pill" might hobble competitors. I disagree. > Any company that produces software is hurting itself the most when it > releases PPLed code. That is not exactly my point. I certainly did not say anyone was foolish. I also did not say that the intent was to hobble competitors, but rather not to give a valuable gift to competitors. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?39A60207.4F8C6829>