Date: Fri, 20 Apr 2001 03:44:16 -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: <15071.63200.662238.163174@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <200104192246.PAA22437@usr01.primenet.com> References: <15071.14666.204581.853258@guru.mired.org> <200104192246.PAA22437@usr01.primenet.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> types: > > > 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? > Yes. I can categorically state that your proposed revenue > models require input proportional to the revenue they > generate, whereas proprietary software models have revenue > which is based on market valuation, not on effort input, > and that the difference between those two values is the > amount of money you can show as profit for shareholders, > as well as applying to R&D costs. That adjective "effort" hides a multitude of sins. All the models have a gross profit based on market valuation. In the proprietary software model, the effort input is part of the fixed costs, not the per-unit costs. GPL'd software has the restriction that the per-unit price can't be raised to arbitrary multiples of the per-unit cost, which makes it resemble most other products. > > If you start a research project aimed at modifying a GPL'ed > > program, the "product" model clearly isn't available. > You are confusing "R" with "D". The model is vailable, but is > contingent on a business plan. Business plans can change. > > Since the model is, as you say, unavailable, clearly, GPL'ed > code is not desirable to use when starting a business where > you don't want to be locked into a single revenue model or > exit strategy. I can't argue that there are times when GPL'ed code isn't desirable. > > Again - what kind of idiot would invest 3 years without a > > plan to pay for it? > A researcher, who has only the materials available at hand, > including open source software, from which to build upon to > do his research. In that case, the correct person to blame if it turns out they can't pay for the result is themselves. > > > > 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. > You are mistaken. If it is outside of the scope of the license, > then rights are not granted by the license, and therefore no rights > exist. Fair enough. > As far as running the program, the question is whether, when the > program is run on the web server on behalf of a user, whether it > is you running the program, or whether it is the user running the > program using your equipment. I'd be interested to know why those two are different cases. > I think you need to read some of RMS' recent writing on the > subject of Application Service Providers, since it's clear that > such an arrangement would be against the spirit of the GPL. > If you want to argue my interpretation, take it up with IBM's > legal department, since it is the lawyers, not me, who arrived > at this interpretation. It's clear from RMSs statements that he wants the GPL to cover ASPs. That he wants it to is a pretty good indication that it doesn't. If I were IBMs lawyers and knew that he wanted that, I'd recommend against a business plan that depended on it not covering that case as well, as that minimizes the risk of being shown to be wrong. > > > > 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. > Fine. If you could point me toward the GNU equivalent of Microsoft > Office, I'd be happy to use it. It should be able to read and > write all Microsoft file formats, since my staff must communicate > with real world customers in order for me to make money. If you've been that badly infected by the microsoft virus, feel free to extend the OpenOffice.org software until it meets your requirements. Personally, I have better uses for my time. > > > 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. > No. I can own a commercial software company, even if it's just > me and some guy named "Bob". Microsoft is not the only commercial > software company. You can own a GPL software company even if it's just you and some guy named Bob. I don't see a difference. > > 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. > "Many" != "vast majority". Right - not everyone working under those conditions manage to retire etc. Most startups fail, so their owners don't get to retire that way either. Your conclusion is still false. > Let us say "retire at a monetary standard of living equal to or > in excess of the working standard of living". > > That dumps out all the people with union pensions who you care to > point to, etc.. No, it doesn't, it just restricts it to the ones who've done the financial prepwork so they can retire under those conditions. That restriction eliminates anyone who's trying to live on a union pension, but it certainly doesn't eliminate anyone with a union pension. <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?15071.63200.662238.163174>