Date: Thu, 20 Feb 1997 23:54:22 -0700 (MST) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Cc: toor@dyson.iquest.net, dyson@freebsd.org, cmott@srv.net, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: GPL Message-ID: <199702210654.XAA00572@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199702210114.UAA17911@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu> References: <199702190322.WAA17162@dyson.iquest.net> <199702210114.UAA17911@kropotkin.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> >> For a user, the GPL is as much of a carte blanche as you want. You > >> can use it, you can distribute it, you can sell it, whatever you want, > >> just so long as it stays GPL'd. > > > But if you change the software one IOTA, you must make the > > source of the changes available to those that you distribute binaries > > to. > > This is correct. However, it also makes the assumption that > distributing the source is harmful. This is where I disagree. > > Although distributed source does allow competitors to see what changes > you have made, this allows them to improve, and to make further > changes, which you will receive. Sure, but how to I recover the time I spent (as a company) creating those changes? (For development tools it's a bit hazy unless you're in the business of selling development tools.) Assuming you are in the business if 'selling software' (and that software *IS* your product, unlike NeXT, where fixing bugs in the compiler was critical to having software to sell), you *must* recover your costs somehow. If you write good/bug-free software, once you sell the first copy it can be copied verbatim to everyone/anyone, and anyone else (your competitor) can grab the software, use the ideas out of it (w/out copying the actual software), or copy the software and try to sell it themselves (see the next paragraph). I've hidden nothing from them. Companies such a WC-CDROM take existing 'free' software, package it up nicely and sell it. They could do that with my source code and leave me and my programming staff with nothing except for the price we got from the first few copies of the software we sold. > By hoarding sources, limiting licenses, patenting techniques, and > copyrighting interfaces, the entire industry suffers rather than > profits. Don't lump *ALL* of that into the same domain. I'm against software patents and interface copyrights as much as the next guy, and I dislike the licensing schemes many vendors take. (But understand that it's a necessary evil). > Had rms and the other hackers chosen to keep GCC secret, > NeXT would have been forced to write their own compiler from scratch, > costing a great deal of time and money. Or they could have teamed up with Meta-Ware and had them port their 68K compiler to NeXT. They had to pay *someone* to port GCC to the NeXT box, it didn't come for free. > Algorithms need not be kept secret to be profitable. Walnut Creek is > making a pretty profit, and allowing all their sources to be availible > for FTP. Walnut Creek CD-ROM is not a software house, but a 'media' distributor. See above. I suspect the most significant piece of software WC has ever 'sponsored' Jordan's sysinstall program, probably not the most ground-breaking and exciting piece of code he ever wrote. :) > > The original author is bound by > > the GPL applied to the derived works in the same way that those who > > add to the original works are bound by his GPL encumberance. > > The author does not, in my mind, have the right to hold a monopoly on > his program. The good of the many outweighs the good of the few. *laugh* If only the world were that black/white. What 'good' does it do my family to go hungry because I can't afford to support them with what I do for a living? I guess I could go flip burgers at McDuck's for the 'greater good of mankind' who benefit my software. Socialism as a way of life has failed, and will continue to fail because people are basically greedy. > > Agreed, and much of the time, source code can have cost either alot of money > > to produce, or have unique and novel ideas that would be undesirable to > > disclose. This is especially important for the small manufacturer, or large > > company with paranoid (rightfully so) lawyers. > > By hoarding these ideas, the author is doing a great harm to society. See above. Socialism is a failed ideal. Socialism doesn't feed people in a capatilistic society, and we live in a capatalistic society. > distribution and installation as etc/copying.paper), rms hypothesizes > about a society in which recipes were hoarded, and gives an example in > which a diner is faced with a delicious recipe, but one which contains > salt, which he is forbidden from eating. He is either required to pay > an exhorbant amount of money and wait for two years to have the salt > removed (since the chef has a monopoly), or to refrain from eating the > meal altogether. Or, if the need for a meal w/out Salt was great enough an enterprising person would start a 'salt-free' diner. Hmm, this sounds like what has happened in recent years with the increase in popularity of being a vegatarian. And, do you know what? It's worked. (Amazing.) > > That is all and well, but the information in those sources is a combination > > of both the GPLed original, and code that must necessarily come under the > > GPL encumberance because of interface issues (per RMS.) This implies that > > the payment for using GPLed code is to give away potentially valuable > > trade secrets. > > These secrets only need be given away if you give away binaries. If > you sell your binaries, the source must accompany them, but you have > made your profit already. Yep, you had to recover *all* of your development costs, *AND* make a profit with one (or a few stupid ones) customer. The price for Nate-Office-97 is $200K for the first few customers, and free for the rest. (And boy, my profit margin is *pretty* thin.) > There is not a programmer alive who will question the value of linked > lists, but these are not secret. And don't have to be, because it is *SO* darn obvious. But again, we're talking about software patents here, with are completely separate from the GPL. Please don't confuse them. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199702210654.XAA00572>