Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!clyde.concordia.ca!uunet!talos!kjones From: kjones@talos.uu.net (Kyle Jones) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: Copyleftability Message-ID: <1989Dec21.154639.20969@talos.uu.net> Date: 21 Dec 89 15:46:39 GMT References: <8300@stiatl.UUCP> Reply-To: kjones@talos.uu.net Lines: 60 Miles O'Neal writes about the GPL: > [...] there are some problems with your "limitations" upon what I can > do. > > 1) If I release good, quality software, that meets a real need, that doesn't > need lots of support (I *said* quality*), with good documentation, then > why on earth would people buy it if they could get it free? Forget it. Even quality software needs support. Ask the authors of C news. Ask the authors of your favorite piece of software. You cannot possibly anticipate everything that the users will want, even if your code is completely bug free. And when you start adding things that the users want, you will inevitably introduce bugs. There will be a market for software maintenance, believe it. > 2) A lot of other people, such as 103% of all the MIS-heads in the world, > are going to lump it in with all that "public domain bulletin board stuff"- > useless garbage and probably full of viruses, or at least nasty bugs (their > perceptions, not mine). They would summarily have someone on their staff > shot who even LET the stuff in the door. And the guarantees you get with commercial software are any better? No warranty, no guarantee that the software will do anything at all or let alone be fit for the advertised purpose, nothing. By the way, if you're using this same virus-ridden, buggy free software that your MIS customers loathe to develop your product, how can you guarantee that the software you deliver doesn't suffer from the same maladies? If they knew you were using such software in your operations, would they still want to buy your product? > This does NOT appear to give me a good chance at making any decent living > (ie, lower middle class income or above) off the software. Software isn't the only thing that a computer professional is capable of producing! For a given task, the right hardware must be chosen, and installed. The right software must be chosen and installed. Users must be educated as to how to use the software. Software must be maintained. Software must be maintained. Software must be maintained. (The repetition is intentional.) Hardware must be monitored and maintained. As needs change, the above cycle repeats. What I want to know is why you would want more of a free lunch. You can get GNU software for the cost of making a copy, and yet you don't seem to want to give anything back. The beauty of sharing is that if everyone shares, EVERYONE gets more than they give. If I write a neat program and post it to the net, and N others do the same, I get N neat programs despite the fact I only wrote one. And so does everyone else. And this is a Bad Thing? To me, a bad thing is taking, and taking, and taking without giving anything in return. So the GPL forces your hand a little... ah well, there are alternatives to using FSF code. In my mind, the whole point of the FSF is to encourage software sharing, The idea to make software freely distributible so that more people can receive the benefits of the software itself, rather than money made from the sale of the software. Software is the end, not the means. A very different point of view than that of a software vendor. kyle jones ...!uunet!talos!kjones