Date: Thu, 19 Apr 2001 14:15:22 -0500 From: Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> To: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> Cc: trevor@jpj.net (Trevor Johnson), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stallman now claims authorship of Linux Message-ID: <15071.14666.204581.853258@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <200104191845.LAA17455@usr09.primenet.com> References: <15070.54826.847491.916792@guru.mired.org> <200104191845.LAA17455@usr09.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> types:
> > > > Are you saying that hiring someone to make changes to a GPL'd program
> > > > would violate this second provision?
> > >
> > > No. He's saying that the intellectual property involved in a 40
> > > line change that results from 3 years of research should be able
> > > to result in sufficient revenue to pay for that research.
> >
> > What kind of idiot would invest 3 years in research without some kind
> > of plan as to how to pay for the research?
>
> You clearly do not understand that some businesses can switch
> from a "service" to a "product" business model.
You can say that after I pointed out that there were alternative
business models? If you start a research project aimed at modifying a
GPL'ed program, the "product" model clearly isn't available. Again -
what kind of idiot would invest 3 years without a plan to pay for it?
> > selling the ability to run the program (B),
>
> Technically, this constitutes a limited transfer of ownership;
> under the GPL, I can demand the source code, so long as I have
> a paid subscription.
I think we need to clarify which version of the GPL we're talking
about. The most recent one I have handy (Version 2) says at the top of
paragraph 2:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act of
running the Program is not restricted, [...]
That seems to pretty clearly exempt this case. If I transferred the
program to their computer so they could run it, it wouldn't be - but
that's not what's happening here.
> > or simply saving staff time (C).
> My employee can demand the source code, and since no additional
> restrictions are permitted, their non-disclosure agreement with
> my company is not binding on them.
That's certainly true, but has nothing to do with this model for
funding the development. The staff timed saved is the same whether
they can demand and distribute the source code or not. It'd be rather
nasty if you were planning on funding the development by selling the
results as a product, but that wasn't the plan described.
> You also missed:
No, I didn't miss them. They're clearly listed in the phrase "included
but not limited to".
> D) Being a paid support flunky for the software.
>
> E) Being a wage-slave for improvements to the software.
>
> F) Being paid a small amount for the initial developement
> as a work for hire for the benefit of the GPL, such
> that your wages need to be arbitrarily low, since your
> wages can not be amortized.
>
> The GPL thus promotes amateurs in place of trained engineers,
> unless you are willing to work until you die, and never be
> able to retire as a result of rewards for your efforts.
First, this means the GPL has the same effect as commercial software.
Second, the working conditions you described apply to the vast
majority of people in the US. Since many of them do manage to retire
as a result of the rewards of their efforts, I'd say your final
conclusion is false.
<mike
--
Mike Meyer <mwm@mired.org> http://www.mired.org/home/mwm/
Independent WWW/Perforce/FreeBSD/Unix consultant, email for more information.
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?15071.14666.204581.853258>