Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 05:07:00 -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: <15073.23492.944973.214417@guru.mired.org> In-Reply-To: <200104210025.RAA14856@usr07.primenet.com> References: <15071.63200.662238.163174@guru.mired.org> <200104210025.RAA14856@usr07.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. > I don't understand your use of the word "sin" here. Basically, that you're changing the definition of the "input" by restricting it to "effort". That's simply playing word games. > Patent and copyright protection also permits the per-unit price to > be raised to arbitrary multiples of the per-unit cost. That should be preceeded by "both", as the issue at hand is really copyright. The GPL simply prevents authors modifying GPL'ed software from using the copyright monopoly to advance their goals. Then again, the GPL is using the copyright monopoly to advance goals of the original author. > I think the thing you are apparently refusing to factor in is that > the labor itself is not based on the per-unit *value*. No, I'm aware of that. It's just part of the overhead. > What this means is that a J.D. Salinger may have only 6 good > Novels in him to be written in his lifetime. The money he > makes must therefore be 1/6th of the money he requires as his > total lifetime income, in order to encourage him to write them. This has at least three assumptions that you need to prove. One is that he had no other means of income, as otherwise you've placed the value to high. Second is that he wouldn't have written them unless he were paid for them. Harlan Ellison's description of the typical writer discovering that you can sell your writings - "You go from writing stories and stuffing the paper into the wall for insulation to writing stories, selling them and stuffing the money into the wall for insulation" (roughly - again, my books are pretty much all in story) tends to indicate that that is false for at least some authors, so may be false for this one. Finally, assuming those two things are true, you are assuming the only way of providing that income is via the copyright monopoly. > > > > 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. > Thank you. That doesn't mean that aren't times when it isn't a problem, either. It exists, and any business plan that doesn't include it isn't dealing with reality. Business plans that don't deal with reality have a habit of failing. > > > > 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. > This assumes that the person paying for the research is the researcher > making the decision on the code base. > > The researcher makes a decision based on information available > at the time the decision must be made. > > It is _completely unreasonable_ to expect a researcher to know > all the details of the business operation, in the same way that > it is _completely unreasonable_ to expect a business person to > know all the details of the research operation. > > You are totally ignoring the concept of seperation of roles. A > single person simply _can not_ know everything. True. But the GPL isn't the only thing that can cause problems like this. If some business model is critical to funding the research, then it becomes part of the research problem. It's the buinsess person's responsibility to see that the researcher has all the information relevant to solving the problem. If they fail to provide that information, then they have only themselves to blame if the solution provided doesn't handle that criteria. > > > 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. > Because in one case, I effectively give you the program and say > "here, run this"; in the other, I keep the program and say "here, > let me run this for you so that you may interact with it". That seems like a pretty silly thing to do - but RMS might well do it. > > > 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. > > The problem with that is the "or later version" clause in the > license. RMS can come out with a version 3.0 of the license > which changes the terms out from under you. That only applies if the copyright owner allows it. Without some form of warranty that the GPL will never be changed to something restrictive, that would be a pretty silly thing to do. Of course, if the FSF is the copyright holder, they would naturally do that. And they are asking people to assign copyright to the FSF... > > > 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. > > So do I. So I weigh the costs of extending OpenOffice (really, > writing the thing, since it's so inferior to the Microsoft > equivalents), and I find that it costs me significantly less to > just buy the Microsoft software instead. Quite right. No single business model is applicable to all situations. Trying to force fit one business model onto all situations is an idiotic thing to do. But that's exactly what claims like "Without copyright, nobody would write software because they couldn't sell it" do. > It has nothing to do with "the microsoft virus", as you call it: > it has to do with business not operating in a vacuum. The vast > majority of the business software space is Microsoft. If software > doesn't interoperate, then it's just wasted space on the hard > drive. That *is* the Microsoft virus. Their software is designed to make others have to buy Microsoft products. Virus may not be the biologically correct phrase, but it's certainly some form of disease or parasite. > > > > > 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. > > I don't own anything. Or if I do own something, it's not a > software company. A software company is a company which sells > software. If I have to give away my source code for free any > time someone asks for it, I may be a consultant or some other > form of wage-slave, and I may own a flunky employment agency, > or I might own a software _distribution_ company, but I sure as > heck am not the owner of a software company. I never said it was a business that was guaranteed to work. Then again, if I had a business that was guaranteed to work, I wouldn't be wasting time on freebsd mailling lists. If you want to quibble at terminology and claim that having to give away the source for the software in your pretty packaged box means you aren't a software company, no problem. You now own a company that generates revenue by writing and selling software products, but it isn't a software company. > > > > 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. > How so? My conclusion was that there was an exception to your > conclusion, and therefore your conclusion was false. How is it > that your conclusion is still right, even after I have demonstrated > a case where it isn't? Because I didn't make a universal claim, you did. You effectively said "you can't retire under these conditions". A single counterexample invalidates that. I provided a class of counterexamples, and hence concluded "you can retire under those conditions." You've shown that some members of that class don't retire under those conditions, but to invalidate my claim you need to show that *no* members of the class can retire under those conditions. That's going to be hard to do when I'm related to members who've retired under those conditions. > > > 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. > > OK: A union pension is not a sufficient condition for retirement; > do you like that formulation better? Yup. I won't argue with it. Anyone who plans on retiring on a union pension, or social security, or even both, is probably going to fail. Not everybody is that stupid. <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?15073.23492.944973.214417>