juridical Question on software and GPL

[edA-qa mort-ora-y]

Moritz Sinn wrote:
> that ppl don't care about quality and that they only see the outer
> appearance was already mentioned in this discussion. they don't care
> about their freedom to change the software, to read the source code or
> what so ever. they just want to use it. if it would be diffrent linux
> would be on every computer and not windows.

Maybe for most individual home users this is true, but for a business 
there is certainly a case for having open/free software.  The businesses 
I've had, or worked for, one more than occassion have had software that 
had a defect or something, and the vendor would not fix it unless we 
paid a large upgrade fee.  I would have been cheaper to pay a programmer 
to find and correct the issue for us.

On numerous occassions I've had software simply left behind, never to be 
updated again, and nobody to pick it up and keep it going.  If this 
wasn't a real concern, there wouldn't be source code escrow brokers -- 
but there are, and for any small software vendor to get a large business 
client they are almost always required to put their code in escrow.  The 
business doesn't want to be stuck using a dead product.

As a developer for a company I've also seen great advantage to free 
software.  Many developers take a lot of pride in their work, and they 
hate seeing it die because of a stupid business practice.  I've 
personally had to give up using a program that I was the lead developer 
for since the company went out of business and the software died as a 
corporate asset.  It is a complete and total waste, 25 years or so of 
man-year effort, a completely usable product, and it is completely dead 
  and forgotten now.  I hope more developers start demanding free 
software, as I shudder to think how many great products have simply died 
and been forgotten due to corporate failure.



-- 
edA-qa mort-ora-y
Idea Architect
http://disemia.com/