Date: Mon, 23 Apr 2001 21:12:03 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mwm@mired.org (Mike Meyer) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), trevor@jpj.net (Trevor Johnson), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stallman now claims authorship of Linux Message-ID: <200104232112.OAA25946@usr07.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <15073.23492.944973.214417@guru.mired.org> from "Mike Meyer" at Apr 21, 2001 05:07:00 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > 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. In the limit, it's human effort input. I think you are also missing the point, which is that once software has been GPL'ed, it ceases to have economic potential. Software under that license ceases to have a market valuation, since I can demand source code while giving nothing in return. > > 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. Actually, it's using it as an instrumentality of the GNU manifesto, to advance the goals of Richard Stallman, as put forth in that manifesto. > > 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. You are arguing that it is impossible to build monuments with lasting value. I would argue that the Internet itself is entirely based on code that was capable of being commercialized, and were it not for the fact that companies like Cisco, IBM, etc. were able to commercialize the code, they would have used different code which they _could_ commercialize, and we might be using XNS of IPX instead of IP. The companies were formed to make a profit, and they would not have supported not making a profit. In fact, there are IRS rules regarding demonstration of profitability (2 years out of 5). Further, I would class the work of Jon Postel and other as being lasting monuments _in software_. > > 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. I think perhaps you aren't familiar with Salinger's life. He has been a professional writer throughout his adult life. After leaving the army in November of 1945, he really had no other source of income. Even before that, he was a prolific short story author, making hist first sale shortly after turning 21. > Second is that he wouldn't have written them unless he > were paid for them. It was his _profession_. This is the problem with the GNU Manifesto: it claims that people will create for the act itself, and that they need not be paid professionals. In other words, it calls for the death of the professional software engineer. Personally, I would prefer that professional software engineers continue to exist. I would have a lot of trouble trusting GPL'ed avionics code, let alone the code that goes into equipment like a gamma knife or a blood gas monitor. > 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. The point is that not being paid for the work, a great author could only dedicate a portion of their time to the creative act. You are effectively claiming that everything that needs to be written, could be written amatuer hobbiests. Looking at the GPL'ed code in Linux and (much worse) Fetchmail, I pretty much have to say it's generally uninspired, and lacks professional consistency. Some of these arguments can be leveled at FreeBSD code, as well, but a significant fraction of FreeBSD was written by professionals, being paid to write the code. > Finally, assuming those two things are true, > you are assuming the only way of providing that income is via the > copyright monopoly. Actually, I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who penned that part of the U.S. Constitution. The copyright and patent "monopolies" exist because they are the best way we have come up with so far to encourage progress in the useful arts and sciences. If they didn't exist, the U.S. would not be the sole remaining superpower. > > > 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. GPL'ed code is only useful for tactical problems. Strategic code is the value of your business. If you gave it away under the GPL, your software business would lack value. You could argue that the software is ancillary, and that a company should sell widgets, with the software as an add-on. But down that road lies commoditization of your product, since a computer is a computer, and it is the software which makes it brilliant (or useless). If I don't have a monopoly on the software, I don't have a monopoly on the widget business, since a competitor need only buy one of my widgets, and demand the software be given to them. > > 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. Correct. To succeed in business, you must jetison everything that causes problems like this; so jettisoning the GPL is necessary, but not sufficient. > 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. Research needs to be portable to products, or business will not fund it. > > > 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... Yes. This is really a back-handed way for them to state that the GPL is fine for you, but for them, they require assignment of rights. > > 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. I never claimed that "nobody would write software": you would still have plenty of unprofessional amatuer programmers. > > 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. Oh well. Whether you like it or not, most people could really care less about what they are running. What they want is to be able to hire someone off the street, and have them immediately be productive with the applicaitons they are expected to use. No one is really trained up on "OpenOffice". Per seat training costs can go as high as $2,500. > 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. That's so wrong. Once I sell one, I can never sell another, unless your base assumption is that people are morons. > > > > > 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. How about "You can't retire to Palo Alto, California without several million dollars"; is that better? > That's going to be hard to do when I'm related to members who've > retired under those conditions. It takes ~$171,000 per $1000 of monthly inclome from an annuity intended to last only 25 years. That's $342,000 just to be able to pay rent in any place in the Silicon Valley area, and that _incorrectly_ assumes that rental rates will never go up over that 25 year period, and none of the annuity income goes to taxes. Given the tax bracket that would put you in, you would need double that amount of money to cover rent + taxes. Effectively, I can't retire at my current income level on anything less than ~$3.5 million, and if I want to support COLA and inflation adjustments, we are talking closer to $5M. So perhaps, if everyone retired to a trailer park in the South-Eastern U.S., you could make your retirement claim stick. Perhaps we should add a desirability factor for such a retirement. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. 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?200104232112.OAA25946>