Date: Sat, 16 May 1998 06:24:49 -0500 (EST) From: "John S. Dyson" <dyson@FreeBSD.ORG> To: jak@cetlink.net (John Kelly) Cc: chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: commercial software (definitive) Message-ID: <199805161124.GAA01063@dyson.iquest.net> In-Reply-To: <355e6101.3040338@mail.cetlink.net> from John Kelly at "May 16, 98 10:01:49 am"
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
John Kelly said: > On Fri, 15 May 1998 22:57:38 -0500 (EST), "John S. Dyson" > <toor@dyson.iquest.net> wrote: > > >When GPLed parts of the system have to be hacked on, it is > >understood apriori that the work will not be a part of the > >competitive advantage ... (I do like hacking on GCC and stuff, > >but know that any potential competitive advantage is lost > > Some in management believe that competitive advantage must include > trade secrets. But the truth is that superior customer service is far > more powerful in gaining competitive advantage. That's why I believe > that limitations of the GPL are mostly imaginary. > Superior customer service is supported by utilizing competitive advantage and having control of ones own inventive ability. In fact, it is likely that one who can exploit one's own abilities effectively is going to be able to invest more in a code base. Having the value of ones own creative abilities immediately diluted by excessively intrusive licenses only decreases the motivation to use that ability on a code base, and causes one to seek another code base to work with. One feasable way for "support" to fund development is to overcharge excessively for it (and that situation happens, but smart, non-bureacratic companies see that pretty quickly.) If superior customer service includes product that you can afford to invest more into because you can keep control of some of your inventions, then I can agree with you. If superior customer service includes your ability to exploit support on the net also, that is even better. With free licenses (as opposed to GPL) you have the ability to both control your own ideas, *and* also cooperate with net support. With free licenses there are effective motivations to contribute ideas back to the code base, without strong legal requirements. (Again, I am speaking of code that has an adequate critical mass, like FreeBSD... Smaller projects need stronger terms at first, but not something like GPL, where it is almost impossible to free the code once the project is strong enough.) With licenses that immediately condemn your ideas to the public, big support houses can gain control over your inventions by their inherently powerful marketing abilities, and leave you out in the cold. In the best case, their stronger marketing (but not necessarily development abilities) can actually manipulate you into becoming a subcontractor for them. (This senario almost happened at work, and my mgmt was aware enough of the situation to stop it.) "Little" people can be manipulated in the support senario as easily as any other. Additionally, almost all of the concerns about big companies "hoarding" BSD-like licensed software with critical mass are null and void. Every company that I have been involved with using BSD-like licensed software has relatively freely contributed back to the code base, with only few conditions. -- John | Never try to teach a pig to sing, dyson@freebsd.org | it just makes you look stupid, jdyson@nc.com | and it irritates the pig. 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?199805161124.GAA01063>