Date: Sun, 14 Jul 1996 16:28:05 -0600 (MDT) From: Nate Williams <nate@mt.sri.com> To: joelh@gnu.ai.mit.edu Cc: nate@mt.sri.com, joerg_wunsch@uriah.heep.sax.de, freebsd-chat@freebsd.org Subject: Re: What's so evil about GPL Message-ID: <199607142228.QAA15798@rocky.mt.sri.com> In-Reply-To: <199607142205.SAA05369@goldman.gnu.ai.mit.edu> References: <199607140437.WAA13056@rocky.mt.sri.com> <199607142205.SAA05369@goldman.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Joel Ray Holveck writes: > > > > 'packaging' of the code, and not the code itself. In effect, > > programmers become 'publishers', since the time and effort we > > spend coding isn't worth any monetary value unless it's done for > > the sake of 'maintenance'. Once the code is written, the code has > > I'd say a point which should be brought out is, although not being > disjoint or in contradition with your statement, in contrast with it, > and is this: (69 shift/reduce conflicts) > > Even rms himself has made commercial products. If the product needs > to be built, people are willing to pay for it to be built. The only > difference is that the product is then free, and other people can also > get the same benefits. No arguement from me there. But, as I stated above. The value is *NOT* in the product, but in the time taken to 'do' the product. So, in effect programmers are relegated to being high-paid 'service' providers rather than 'producing' a product. This sounds rather innocuous at first until you realize many of the possible ramifications. Does the phrase 'would you like fries (a GUI) with that burger (editor)' ring a bell? The quality of the implementation becomes less important than the 'existence' of a current implementation. 'Evolutionary' code becomes the norm because 'revolutionary' requires a lot more time and effort, and recouping those (significant!) development costs is at best difficult and at worst impossible. At one point 'gcc' was one of the best compilers on the market, but it is no longer. It *IS* the most portable compiler around, but almost every other vendor-compiler compliles tighter code, and does it *much* faster. The bar has been raised by GPL code, but it still hasn't proven that it can 'replace' proprietary code, even in the areas where it as succeeded the most. Nate
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199607142228.QAA15798>