Hello at all!
I do think that this software does not violate the GPL. And: The "distributer" on http://www.bemme.de seems to be the original author of the software. So, he can do what ever he wants to do with his software, right? Even selling it. ;-)
As I understand the GPL it is allowed to sell the binary file of the software BUT on request the source code has to be provided for of charge.
And now I have an additional question to all of you: If Volker gets this source code he can modify, "keep the software as it is", and redistribute it as it is or modified. Right? He can do so with or without to charge a fee for the re-distribution (e.g. from his website). I think the GPL allows explicitly to charge for the redistribution. So, he would not violate the GPL if he would do so. Is this a correct interpretation of the GPL?
I think this is the the real "mess" of the GPL. It is the economical/commercial effect (!!!). Why should people go on and get the software from http://www.bemme.de/ when they can download the same piece of software from any other website (e.g. Volkers ;-)).
What would be important for Volker to notice is: The GPL would require him to publish the derived (or the same) version of the software again under the GPL (see: the broad discussed viral affect of the GPL ([1])).
I hope I am correct with my assumptions about GPL'ed software. I really hope so, because I argued in this way in my MA thesis ;-))
That's why only selling a GPL'ed software doesn't make (ECONOMICAL) sense. You have to sell services (like support etc.) in addition to really get money out of it. Or you have to publish the software under two licenses (like MySQL AB, Sweden [2]). But this is only efficient when you are going to build up giant enterprises where the "free riders" are a valuable part of your business model.
If the things I said above are "bullshit", please let me know. I am into ethics - nor law or computer science. ;-))
Cheers, Axel
P.S.: Sorry, Volker, that I missused you here in my examples. P.S.S.: There is always a BUT ;-))
General note: I got most of my arguments from http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GPL [2] in the MySQL case: http://www.mysql.com/newsletter/2003-11/a0000000220.html
--
:: Mail: axel@schulz.ph :: Web: http://www.schulz.ph%C2%A0 :: Fax: ++49 721 151 495 559
"Axel Schulz" axel@schulz.ph writes:
Hello at all!
I do think that this software does not violate the GPL. And: The "distributer" on http://www.bemme.de seems to be the original author of the software. So, he can do what ever he wants to do with his software, right? Even selling it. ;-)
well, yes. but if he puts it under gpl he has to follow what gpl says.
As I understand the GPL it is allowed to sell the binary file of the software BUT on request the source code has to be provided for of charge.
more or less. the source code has to come with the software. so its not allowed to claim an extra fee for the source code.
And now I have an additional question to all of you: If Volker gets this source code he can modify, "keep the software as it is", and redistribute it as it is or modified. Right? He can do so with or without to charge a fee for the re-distribution (e.g. from his website). I think the GPL allows explicitly to charge for the redistribution. So, he would not violate the GPL if he would do so. Is this a correct interpretation of the GPL?
yes, that's what the part of gpl that i quoted in my last mailing says. and that's why you cannot earn money with programming free software. you have to hope on the economical side effects.
I think this is the the real "mess" of the GPL. It is the economical/commercial effect (!!!). Why should people go on and get the software from http://www.bemme.de/ when they can download the same piece of software from any other website (e.g. Volkers ;-)).
if your main goal is to earn money and not to write good software you've todo it the classical way: like microsoft.
What would be important for Volker to notice is: The GPL would require him to publish the derived (or the same) version of the software again under the GPL (see: the broad discussed viral affect of the GPL ([1])).
exactly. else someone could steal free software, close it and earn lots of money with the work of others. exploit the free software programmers.
I hope I am correct with my assumptions about GPL'ed software. I really hope so, because I argued in this way in my MA thesis ;-))
That's why only selling a GPL'ed software doesn't make (ECONOMICAL) sense. You have to sell services (like support etc.) in addition to really get money out of it. Or you have to publish the software under two licenses (like MySQL AB, Sweden [2]). But this is only efficient when you are going to build up giant enterprises where the "free riders" are a valuable part of your business model.
afaik it is not allowed to publish gpl software under a second license. i don't know how mysql does that.
regards, moritz
A Sex, 2004-03-26 às 20:32, Moritz Sinn escreveu:
more or less. the source code has to come with the software. so its not allowed to claim an extra fee for the source code.
The people distributing can claim a fee for the sourcecode, but it's limited to "cost of physically performing source distribution".
And now I have an additional question to all of you: If Volker gets this source code he can modify, "keep the software as it is", and redistribute it as it is or modified. Right? He can do so with or without to charge a fee for the re-distribution (e.g. from his website). I think the GPL allows explicitly to charge for the redistribution. So, he would not violate the GPL if he would do so. Is this a correct interpretation of the GPL?
yes, that's what the part of gpl that i quoted in my last mailing says. and that's why you cannot earn money with programming free software. you have to hope on the economical side effects.
Not true. You can make money programming free software (my bank account will confirm this) you just have to change the way you charge. With proprietary software you charge per use, with free software you charge per improvement. I prefer the latter.
afaik it is not allowed to publish gpl software under a second license. i don't know how mysql does that.
The copyright holder can choose any license he/she/it wants for its software. Just because they publish under the GPL there's no reason not to publish the same software under another license if you're the exclusive copyright holder.
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:32:29 +0100 Moritz Sinn moritz@freesources.org wrote:
"Axel Schulz" axel@schulz.ph writes:
Hello at all!
I do think that this software does not violate the GPL. And: The "distributer" on http://www.bemme.de seems to be the original author of the software. So, he can do what ever he wants to do with his software, right? Even selling it. ;-)
well, yes. but if he puts it under gpl he has to follow what gpl says.
An author can always change his license for future releases. If he puts his software under GPL though and then does not sell it alongside with the source code, he essentially made a false promise to the customer. So in that respect he has to follow the gpl indeed.
As I understand the GPL it is allowed to sell the binary file of the software BUT on request the source code has to be provided for of charge.
more or less. the source code has to come with the software. so its not allowed to claim an extra fee for the source code.
And now I have an additional question to all of you: If Volker gets this source code he can modify, "keep the software as it is", and redistribute it as it is or modified. Right? He can do so with or without to charge a fee for the re-distribution (e.g. from his website). I think the GPL allows explicitly to charge for the redistribution. So, he would not violate the GPL if he would do so. Is this a correct interpretation of the GPL?
yes, that's what the part of gpl that i quoted in my last mailing says. and that's why you cannot earn money with programming free software. you have to hope on the economical side effects.
You can easily sell free software in many markets. You must not underestimate the power of a bundled package. People will pay good money to have something that they can use quite easily and that they know is supported. Or to have something delivered to them as a whole without having to worry about the itty gritty details. Microsoft would not be selling software if it didn't look good (as opposed to working good).
I think this is the the real "mess" of the GPL. It is the economical/commercial effect (!!!). Why should people go on and get the software from http://www.bemme.de/ when they can download the same piece of software from any other website (e.g. Volkers ;-)).
if your main goal is to earn money and not to write good software you've todo it the classical way: like microsoft.
The fact that they want to maximize their profits may have something to do with bloat in their software, but on all other accounts these two aspects are totally unrelated. One can write good software and sell it and vice versa. I think it's pretty clear that many propietary software companies sell good software, regardless of the fact that it is propietary.
What would be important for Volker to notice is: The GPL would require him to publish the derived (or the same) version of the software again under the GPL (see: the broad discussed viral affect of the GPL ([1])).
exactly. else someone could steal free software, close it and earn lots of money with the work of others. exploit the free software programmers.
I hope I am correct with my assumptions about GPL'ed software. I really hope so, because I argued in this way in my MA thesis ;-))
That's why only selling a GPL'ed software doesn't make (ECONOMICAL) sense. You have to sell services (like support etc.) in addition to really get money out of it. Or you have to publish the software under two licenses (like MySQL AB, Sweden [2]). But this is only efficient when you are going to build up giant enterprises where the "free riders" are a valuable part of your business model.
afaik it is not allowed to publish gpl software under a second license. i don't know how mysql does that.
AFAIK The mysql group consists of the copyright holders on the software. They are allowed to choose their own license and if they want to double license why not?
greets, Wim
Moritz Sinn wrote:
yes, that's what the part of gpl that i quoted in my last mailing says. and that's why you cannot earn money with programming free software.
As others have explained, paying for programming doesn't have to mean royalties per copy. Quite a few who make money with programming free software are probably in this list, so making such a broad statement in public, telling us that it's impossible to do what we just do, seems a bit silly ...
afaik it is not allowed to publish gpl software under a second license. i don't know how mysql does that.
There are many cases of GPL-dual-licensing. One of the most prominent ones is Perl. As I saw your directory on CPAN, I thought you might have known that ... ;-)
What is true is that a recipient of GPL software can't redistribute it under another license without special permission.
Frank
Frank Heckenbach frank@g-n-u.de writes:
Moritz Sinn wrote:
yes, that's what the part of gpl that i quoted in my last mailing says. and that's why you cannot earn money with programming free software.
As others have explained, paying for programming doesn't have to mean royalties per copy. Quite a few who make money with programming free software are probably in this list, so making such a broad statement in public, telling us that it's impossible to do what we just do, seems a bit silly ...
ok, what you can do is: ask money before publishing it or ask money for publishing it. but you'll always earn more money with proprietary software. and that's what i meant when i said you have to decide whether its about software or money. if money is the main goal of course closed source is more successfull. if its about the software, the art, the joy of programming what so ever.. free software is the better.
i think we should be honest with that. free software is about the software and when it comes to business it has many disadvantages. that doesn't mean that we have to write closed software, it means that there is something wrong with business, because free software is better, which doesn't mean that closed software can also be very good out of the technical point of view.
afaik it is not allowed to publish gpl software under a second license. i don't know how mysql does that.
There are many cases of GPL-dual-licensing. One of the most prominent ones is Perl. As I saw your directory on CPAN, I thought you might have known that ... ;-)
ok, i thought perl would have its own license but i would be allowed to publish my perl modules under which ever license i want.
regards, moritz
Moritz Sinn wrote:
Frank Heckenbach frank@g-n-u.de writes:
Moritz Sinn wrote:
yes, that's what the part of gpl that i quoted in my last mailing says. and that's why you cannot earn money with programming free software.
As others have explained, paying for programming doesn't have to mean royalties per copy. Quite a few who make money with programming free software are probably in this list, so making such a broad statement in public, telling us that it's impossible to do what we just do, seems a bit silly ...
ok, what you can do is: ask money before publishing it or ask money for publishing it. but you'll always earn more money with proprietary software.
Currently perhaps, but if customers learn to demand freedom and will only pay for it, this might change. (It might already be so in special areas, perhaps high paying, high security or similar customers who demand full access, perhaps even full rights to the code they order. But of course, they won't usually redistribute it publicly, even if they could ...)
i think we should be honest with that. free software is about the software and when it comes to business it has many disadvantages. that doesn't mean that we have to write closed software, it means that there is something wrong with business, because free software is better, which doesn't mean that closed software can also be very good out of the technical point of view.
This may be true. However, most software development is customer specific software. In those cases, the license often does not matter much regarding business. The customer might not appreciate the freedoms, but they don't "harm" the developer either.
afaik it is not allowed to publish gpl software under a second license. i don't know how mysql does that.
There are many cases of GPL-dual-licensing. One of the most prominent ones is Perl. As I saw your directory on CPAN, I thought you might have known that ... ;-)
ok, i thought perl would have its own license but i would be allowed to publish my perl modules under which ever license i want.
AFAIK, that's true, and Perl's license is dual GPL-Artistic. It doesn't mean you have to use this for your modules, but since you use Perl a lot I suppose, you might want to know about its license(s).
Frank
On Saturday 27 March 2004 01:00, Moritz Sinn wrote:
Frank Heckenbach frank@g-n-u.de writes:
Moritz Sinn wrote:
yes, that's what the part of gpl that i quoted in my last mailing says. and that's why you cannot earn money with programming free software.
As others have explained, paying for programming doesn't have to mean royalties per copy. Quite a few who make money with programming free software are probably in this list, so making such a broad statement in public, telling us that it's impossible to do what we just do, seems a bit silly ...
ok, what you can do is: ask money before publishing it or ask money for publishing it. but you'll always earn more money with proprietary software. and that's what i meant when i said you have to decide whether its about software or money. if money is the main goal of course closed source is more successfull. if its about the software, the art, the joy of programming what so ever.. free software is the better.
There is another point of view. Some software coders just would not have chance to show their software to anyone. The internet is a huge consumer market, but you will be just one in thousands selling the same kind of software. Making it free software is a chance to have a broader audience, mainly if you don't have money to start your own businness. Think about mysql and postgresql people. How they could compete with sql server and oracle marketing if their software was not free software? They earn money just because their software is good and they use it's fame to have more services. I earn money doing free software, just because I'm good in what I do. Free software has no mercy for incompetence. ;-)
[]s, gandhi
A Sáb, 2004-03-27 às 01:00, Moritz Sinn escreveu:
Frank Heckenbach frank@g-n-u.de writes: ok, what you can do is: ask money before publishing it or ask money for publishing it. but you'll always earn more money with proprietary software. and that's what i meant when i said you have to decide whether its about software or money. if money is the main goal of course closed source is more successfull. if its about the software, the art, the joy of programming what so ever.. free software is the better.
i think we should be honest with that. free software is about the software and when it comes to business it has many disadvantages. that doesn't mean that we have to write closed software, it means that there is something wrong with business, because free software is better, which doesn't mean that closed software can also be very good out of the technical point of view.
Now you're missing completely the economical point of view of the customer. You're telling me that there is a model where people would pay less for the same software and that that model is worst than the other because of that? The clients will understand the difference and that will reduce the demand for proprietary software. At least that's what I'm betting on.
"João Miguel Neves" joao@silvaneves.org writes:
A Sáb, 2004-03-27 às 01:00, Moritz Sinn escreveu:
Frank Heckenbach frank@g-n-u.de writes: ok, what you can do is: ask money before publishing it or ask money for publishing it. but you'll always earn more money with proprietary software. and that's what i meant when i said you have to decide whether its about software or money. if money is the main goal of course closed source is more successfull. if its about the software, the art, the joy of programming what so ever.. free software is the better.
i think we should be honest with that. free software is about the software and when it comes to business it has many disadvantages. that doesn't mean that we have to write closed software, it means that there is something wrong with business, because free software is better, which doesn't mean that closed software can also be very good out of the technical point of view.
Now you're missing completely the economical point of view of the customer. You're telling me that there is a model where people would pay less for the same software and that that model is worst than the other because of that? The clients will understand the difference and that will reduce the demand for proprietary software. At least that's what I'm betting on.
a free software programmer wants to earn as much as a proprietary software programmer ==> free software cannot be cheaper than proprietary software. if it is, the programmer gets less paid or the company accumulates less capital. less capital means a worse position in the competition against the proprietary company. the free software company will not be able to invest as much in e.g. marketing, advertisement so on. if the programmer earns less he'll change to another comapny were he gets more.
the reason why red hat is so successfull is that they don't pay for the capital on base of which they earn money: software. you can say they exploit the free software programmers. so they get software for free out of which they can win surplus value. but this is based on a very small idealistic community of free software programmers who also have to live and earn money and thus will never be able to really overthrow the big business.
microsoft didn't loose any significant share of market in the last years and i don't see why it should.
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.
regards, moritz
On Sat, 2004-03-27 at 12:49 +0100, Moritz Sinn wrote:
accumulates less capital. less capital means a worse position in the competition against the proprietary company. the free software company will not be able to invest as much in e.g. marketing, advertisement so on. if the programmer earns less he'll change to another comapny were he gets more.
Well, if more guys like those in these kinds of lists (us, for instance) help more people understand the need for Free Software, I bet with you that sooner than later it'll be the other way around.
microsoft didn't loose any significant share of market in the last years and i don't see why it should.
Any significant share, yes. But it's being eaten by all sides. Serious parts are crumbling already (large scale moves to GNU/Linux based desktops).
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.
You don't care about what you don't know you can (or have the right to) have. That's what has to be change.
BTW, don't you think it's a little unfair for users to use only an operating system kernel? That way they'll really miss Windows with all those colourful widgets. Why not teach people about GNU/Linux, and how freedom made it reach the current state of the art instead? :)
Hugs, Rui
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.
A Sáb, 2004-03-27 às 11:49, Moritz Sinn escreveu:
"João Miguel Neves" joao@silvaneves.org writes: a free software programmer wants to earn as much as a proprietary software programmer ==> free software cannot be cheaper than proprietary software. if it is, the programmer gets less paid or the company accumulates less capital. less capital means a worse position in the competition against the proprietary company. the free software company will not be able to invest as much in e.g. marketing, advertisement so on. if the programmer earns less he'll change to another comapny were he gets more.
Wrong. The market has nothing to do with what programmers want. They are only one side of the equation. Second, you're assuming that the market will keep itself as it is now. The market is changing, and the software market is not going to be the same in a couple of years.
the reason why red hat is so successfull is that they don't pay for the capital on base of which they earn money: software. you can say they exploit the free software programmers. so they get software for free out of which they can win surplus value. but this is based on a very small idealistic community of free software programmers who also have to live and earn money and thus will never be able to really overthrow the big business.
No, there's another issue in here. Clients have discovered that they can improve and develop software in a cheaper way than paying for it. That idea was confirmed when Microsoft published their finantials and admitted to a margin of 80% in their Windows and Office divisions.
microsoft didn't loose any significant share of market in the last years and i don't see why it should.
They've never fought Free Software head-on so far. OpenOffice.org is doing that fight now and we'll see how well MS handles it. You can't say the same thing for supercomputers and embedded systems. The companies behind products like QNX and VxWorks have lost most of their market share. Beowulfs are, at the moment, a huge part of the supercomputing TOP500 list and they reduced the cost people are able to charge for supercomputers. That's not bad.
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.
That a judgement on a discussion that's still ongoing. Should "normal" people be computer literate? I don't know the answer yet, but the global market evolution makes me believe that's one of the ways to move forward. And in that case, yes, proprietary software is slowing us down.
regards, moritz
Moritz Sinn wrote:
a free software programmer wants to earn as much as a proprietary software programmer ==> free software cannot be cheaper than proprietary software.
Again, be more careful with your conclusions. Of course, it can be cheaper, if it requires less work. This can be easily the case because free software often allows for better reuse of existing code (legally and technically).
the reason why red hat is so successfull is that they don't pay for the capital on base of which they earn money: software. you can say they exploit the free software programmers. so they get software for free out of which they can win surplus value. but this is based on a very small idealistic community of free software programmers who also have to live and earn money and thus will never be able to really overthrow the big business.
microsoft didn't loose any significant share of market in the last years and i don't see why it should.
I don't know what you see or don't see, but this statement is a non sequitur anyway (unless you want to argue that Red Hat can't exist, just like you claimed that we can't do what we do).
Even if your assertions about programmers were true, the fact is that the Red Hat and other distributions are there, and anybody can get them, without more free software programmers being required.
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.
For many people this may be true today, but even for private users it can change. The more people realize the problems of the upgrade treadmill, the increasing Big Brother features, the security problems (currently mostly in the form of viruses), or even just a lower price, and stop falling for the proprietary propaganda, they might start caring for freedom (which, though not the only reason, makes an imporant difference in all those areas and more). So even those who don't want to read source code themselves will see the consequences quite clearly.
Frank
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:03:12 +0100 Frank Heckenbach frank@g-n-u.de wrote:
Moritz Sinn wrote:
a free software programmer wants to earn as much as a proprietary software programmer ==> free software cannot be cheaper than proprietary software.
Again, be more careful with your conclusions. Of course, it can be cheaper, if it requires less work. This can be easily the case because free software often allows for better reuse of existing code (legally and technically).
the reason why red hat is so successfull is that they don't pay for the capital on base of which they earn money: software. you can say they exploit the free software programmers. so they get software for free out of which they can win surplus value. but this is based on a very small idealistic community of free software programmers who also have to live and earn money and thus will never be able to really overthrow the big business.
microsoft didn't loose any significant share of market in the last years and i don't see why it should.
I don't know what you see or don't see, but this statement is a non sequitur anyway (unless you want to argue that Red Hat can't exist, just like you claimed that we can't do what we do).
Even if your assertions about programmers were true, the fact is that the Red Hat and other distributions are there, and anybody can get them, without more free software programmers being required.
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.
For many people this may be true today, but even for private users it can change. The more people realize the problems of the upgrade treadmill, the increasing Big Brother features, the security problems (currently mostly in the form of viruses), or even just a lower price, and stop falling for the proprietary propaganda, they might start caring for freedom (which, though not the only reason, makes an imporant difference in all those areas and more). So even those who don't want to read source code themselves will see the consequences quite clearly.
Frank
What's the "upgrade treadmill"? (just ouf of curiosity)
greets, Wim
Wim De Smet wrote:
What's the "upgrade treadmill"? (just ouf of curiosity)
Google finds 1880 hits ...
Frank
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 12:49:18PM +0100, Moritz Sinn wrote:
the reason why red hat is so successfull is that they don't pay for the capital on base of which they earn money: software. you can say they exploit the free software programmers. so they get software for free out of which they can win surplus value. but this is based on a very small idealistic community of free software programmers who also have to live and earn money and thus will never be able to really overthrow the big business.
This is totally bullshit.
Red Hat is not exploiting te community. Red Hat is one of the biggest contributers to the projects forming the core of GNU/Linux operating system, that is to linux, glibc, gcc, binutils and more. Other than that, every piece of software Red Hat has created is released under a Free Software license as far as I know.
P.S. Can you please start sentences with a capitial letter?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 27 Mar 2004 at 21:28, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
the reason why red hat is so successfull is that they don't pay for the capital on base of which they earn money: software. you can say they exploit the free software programmers. so they get software for free out of which they can win surplus value. but this is based on a very small idealistic community of free software programmers who
This is totally bullshit.
Red Hat is not exploiting te community. Red Hat is one of the biggest contributers to the projects forming the core of GNU/Linux operating system, that is to linux, glibc, gcc, binutils and more. Other than that, every piece of software Red Hat has created is released under a Free Software license as far as I know.
He was using "exploit" in the economic sense eg; exploiting resources. I don't think anyone here would disagree that RedHat are one of the best resellers of free software - they owe their preeminent position to maintaining good relations with the leading free software projects.
However, economically they are only financially viable because their software development cost is tiny precisely because they get it for free. RedHat's business model can never be particularly profitable - it's based almost entirely on companies buying peace of mind rather than anything tangible (consulting services and support can be found elsewhere and cheaper). And if IBM committed all the way to Linux, it could put RedHat out of business within a year - however they are clearly playing it safe for now, keeping fingers in pies and maintaining a launch pad for retaking the PC OS market from Microsoft if the chance ever arises. I personally think Microsoft leave RedHat alone because they can point to Linux as evidence that they are not a monopoly and thus avoid anti-trust attention (just like they did with Apple) - however, they too could crush RedHat in months if they chose.
In the business world, this whole free software thing is still very puzzling to most executives. They have difficulty seeing how it can make money. However, if it ever became obviously useful for leveraging sales of something which did make a lot of money, expect the whole free software scene to change radically & fast - and probably in a way abhorrent to most within it.
Cheers, Niall
On Sat, Mar 27, 2004 at 11:16:41PM -0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 27 Mar 2004 at 21:28, Jeroen Dekkers wrote:
the reason why red hat is so successfull is that they don't pay for the capital on base of which they earn money: software. you can say they exploit the free software programmers. so they get software for free out of which they can win surplus value. but this is based on a very small idealistic community of free software programmers who
This is totally bullshit.
Red Hat is not exploiting te community. Red Hat is one of the biggest contributers to the projects forming the core of GNU/Linux operating system, that is to linux, glibc, gcc, binutils and more. Other than that, every piece of software Red Hat has created is released under a Free Software license as far as I know.
He was using "exploit" in the economic sense eg; exploiting resources. I don't think anyone here would disagree that RedHat are one of the best resellers of free software - they owe their preeminent position to maintaining good relations with the leading free software projects.
That's because their people work on those projects.
However, economically they are only financially viable because their software development cost is tiny precisely because they get it for free. RedHat's business model can never be particularly profitable - it's based almost entirely on companies buying peace of mind rather than anything tangible (consulting services and support can be found elsewhere and cheaper). And if IBM committed all the way to Linux, it could put RedHat out of business within a year - however they are clearly playing it safe for now, keeping fingers in pies and maintaining a launch pad for retaking the PC OS market from Microsoft if the chance ever arises. I personally think Microsoft leave RedHat alone because they can point to Linux as evidence that they are not a monopoly and thus avoid anti-trust attention (just like they did with Apple) - however, they too could crush RedHat in months if they chose.
Red Hat is big enough to not just get crushed in months. It's just FUD what you are talking.
In the business world, this whole free software thing is still very puzzling to most executives. They have difficulty seeing how it can make money. However, if it ever became obviously useful for leveraging sales of something which did make a lot of money, expect the whole free software scene to change radically & fast - and probably in a way abhorrent to most within it.
The change is already happening.
Niall Douglas wrote:
free. RedHat's business model can never be particularly profitable - it's based almost entirely on companies buying peace of mind rather than anything tangible (consulting services and support can be found elsewhere and cheaper). And if IBM committed all the way to Linux, it
But is peace of mind not the only thing companies are also purchasing from Microsoft. Certainly nobody can say what Microsoft is offering is any more tangible?
I believe you don't mean for your argument to go that way, but it is interesting how somehow it has come full circle in my view to see little difference between the offering of Red Hat and the offering of Microsoft -- save for that should Red Hat go bankrupt, the business has not lost everything, as they have an eay migration to another GNU/Linux distribution.
As for business not seeing how this free software can make money, for many business that is of little interest. If it makes the software cheaper for them, then so be it, it is not in the purchases immediate cares whether his supplier goes bankrupt or not -- particularily when a supplier is easily replaceable.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
On 28 Mar 2004 at 18:33, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote:
free. RedHat's business model can never be particularly profitable - it's based almost entirely on companies buying peace of mind rather than anything tangible (consulting services and support can be found elsewhere and cheaper). And if IBM committed all the way to Linux, it
But is peace of mind not the only thing companies are also purchasing from Microsoft. Certainly nobody can say what Microsoft is offering is any more tangible?
No, Microsoft offer something you can't get elsewhere legally - that's the difference - and businesses are very wary of crossing the law at that level. I agree that as a Linux solution can now fufill 90% of business requirements this is no longer true in the general sense of things, but it'll take some time for the business community to catch on - they will eventually.
I believe you don't mean for your argument to go that way, but it is interesting how somehow it has come full circle in my view to see little difference between the offering of Red Hat and the offering of Microsoft -- save for that should Red Hat go bankrupt, the business has not lost everything, as they have an eay migration to another GNU/Linux distribution.
To fully explore your argument, consider that GNU clone of Windows which aims to be binary compatible with WinNT (I forget its name). It's pretty advanced and can run most NT4 apps now. Imagine if it were up to the level of Win2k and some company was founded to provide peace of mind to companies thinking of migrating to it?
I think that people would in this situation choose the Windows clone over moving to Linux. There's something comfortable about familiarity and people will pay to keep it. That's what economists call "lock in".
As for business not seeing how this free software can make money, for many business that is of little interest. If it makes the software cheaper for them, then so be it, it is not in the purchases immediate cares whether his supplier goes bankrupt or not -- particularily when a supplier is easily replaceable.
I was more referring to the impetus for investing capital. How much do you think IBM really wants to invest in free software? You can see a noticeable difference between say how the Eclipse IDE is funded and how IBM's Linux division is funded - in the latter, few new features are funded.
I think IBM's support of Linux, just like most development company's support of Linux, is merely a cheap way to generate extra hardware sales. And maintain a strategic counterbalance to Microsoft.
Cheers, Niall
Niall Douglas wrote:
No, Microsoft offer something you can't get elsewhere legally - that's the difference - and businesses are very wary of crossing the law at that level. I agree that as a Linux solution can now fufill 90% of business requirements this is no longer true in the general
The only thing you can get from Microsoft that you can't get elsewhere is "Microsoft Windows". But this is just a brand name your buying, and perhaps piece of mind that this brand name has worked before, so it'll probably keep doing so.
But the users of computers don't typically look to buy "MS Windows", they are looking to buy a functional OS that does email, internet, word processing, and whatnot. This is what you can get from many other vendors (not just Linux, Apple has a mature offering as well).
Microsoft has a preimum and complete offering, that when you purchase you have numerous guarantees of everything working together. Your buying an assurance to that (putting defects/problems aside). But if you don't need all the features, and another vendor could meet your requirements, then microsoft is truly offering nothing more than you can get elsewhere.
I think that people would in this situation choose the Windows clone over moving to Linux. There's something comfortable about familiarity and people will pay to keep it. That's what economists call "lock in".
"lock in" is of course MS's biggest strenght, and also their greatest weakness. As you mentioned with your example of having an alternative Win2K implementation, as soon as that "lock in" is lost, companies would have an easier time migrating (they'd feel more comfortable).
As soon as MS has to deal with a world where lock-in is not the norm, then their strategy has to change a lot, hopefully to the betterment of the their customers. Perhaps Linux may not mature to the level of ms windows, but at the very least it'll drive betterment to windows itself.
I was more referring to the impetus for investing capital. How much do you think IBM really wants to invest in free software? You can see a noticeable difference between say how the Eclipse IDE is funded and how IBM's Linux division is funded - in the latter, few new features are funded.
Large copmanies only have an impetus to get larger and generate more money. I think too often we forget about the small players in the market -- it is after all, small to medium size business that employee most people in the economy (excluding government).
Free software offers a great foundation for new small companies. In that past, many great ideas were lost since the foundation would cost too much to create, this only accessible to larger companies with a great capital.
But now it is feasible to create a new firm and drive an idea forward based on free software. for many business is it will be more cost effective to ivnest in extending linux that pay licensing fees to other firms. This is especially true of companies that only use software, and are not actually software vendors themselves (maybe complete solution providers including hardware, software and consulting).
It will be, and is, the smaller firms investing large amounts of capital in free software.
On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 09:56 +0200, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote:
Microsoft has a preimum and complete offering, that when you purchase you have numerous guarantees of everything working together. Your buying an assurance to that (putting defects/problems aside).
No you don't. No you don't.
You have reasonable expectations of everything working together (and they frequently don't) and you don't buy any assurance since they explicitly deny any warranty or responsability.
Rui
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Microsoft has a preimum and complete offering, that when you purchase you have numerous guarantees of everything working together. Your buying an assurance to that (putting defects/problems aside).
No you don't. No you don't. You have reasonable expectations of everything working together (and they frequently don't) and you don't buy any assurance since they explicitly deny any warranty or responsability.
I was just saying that to support Niall's position on piece of mind. I have no problem agreeing with you that you aren't actually purchasing anything since MS specifically says they don't promise their software does anything (though a local court would be more than happy to tell MS that regardless of what they say they are somehow responsible).
So, if you aren't buying an assurance of anything, thus no piece of mind, from Microsoft, what exactly are your buying from them?
On Mon, 2004-03-29 at 11:17 +0200, edA-qa mort-ora-y wrote:
Rui Miguel Seabra wrote:
Microsoft has a preimum and complete offering, that when you purchase you have numerous guarantees of everything working together. Your buying an assurance to that (putting defects/problems aside).
No you don't. No you don't. You have reasonable expectations of everything working together (and they frequently don't) and you don't buy any assurance since they explicitly deny any warranty or responsability.
I was just saying that to support Niall's position on piece of mind. I have no problem agreeing with you that you aren't actually purchasing anything since MS specifically says they don't promise their software does anything (though a local court would be more than happy to tell MS that regardless of what they say they are somehow responsible).
So, if you aren't buying an assurance of anything, thus no piece of mind, from Microsoft, what exactly are your buying from them?
Illusion of assurance. Illusion of quality. Illusion of know how.
Microsoft is the great illusionist :)
Rui
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:32:29 +0100 Moritz Sinn moritz@freesources.org wrote:
"Axel Schulz" axel@schulz.ph writes:
Hello at all!
I do think that this software does not violate the GPL. And: The "distributer" on http://www.bemme.de seems to be the original author of the software. So, he can do what ever he wants to do with his software, right? Even selling it. ;-)
well, yes. but if he puts it under gpl he has to follow what gpl says.
mmh. afaik no: basically you can do whatever you like if you're the author: imagine the following scenario:
A writes a program P and puts it under the GPL. Then he distributes binary only and doesn't answer to requests of source code. At this point user U wants to do something. But the only person who can legally take action on a copyright/licensing issue is the author (A in our case)... So the only thing U could do is to contact A asking him to sue himself :)
Am i getting this wrong somewhere?
And now I have an additional question to all of you: If Volker gets this source code he can modify, "keep the software as it is", and redistribute it as it is or modified. Right? He can do so with or without to charge a fee for the re-distribution (e.g. from his website). I think the GPL allows explicitly to charge for the redistribution. So, he would not violate the GPL if he would do so. Is this a correct interpretation of the GPL?
yes, that's what the part of gpl that i quoted in my last mailing says. and that's why you cannot earn money with programming free software. you have to hope on the economical side effects.
I *am* earning money programming free software... :)
cheers paolino
Am Samstag, dem 27. Mär 2004 schrieb Paolo Gianrossi:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:32:29 +0100 Moritz Sinn moritz@freesources.org wrote:
"Axel Schulz" axel@schulz.ph writes:
Hello at all!
I do think that this software does not violate the GPL. And: The "distributer" on http://www.bemme.de seems to be the original author of the software. So, he can do what ever he wants to do with his software, right? Even selling it. ;-)
well, yes. but if he puts it under gpl he has to follow what gpl says.
mmh. afaik no: basically you can do whatever you like if you're the author: imagine the following scenario:
A writes a program P and puts it under the GPL. Then he distributes binary only and doesn't answer to requests of source code. At this point user U wants to do something. But the only person who can legally take action on a copyright/licensing issue is the author (A in our case)... So the only thing U could do is to contact A asking him to sue himself :)
Am i getting this wrong somewhere?
Yes. In your scenario the program was never really released under the GPL: If it's not source, it's no software. When the author sais, that it is released under the GPL, he's simply lying.
But if a program source was released under the GPL, this can never be taken back anymore. The author may decide to release new versions in binary form only, but he cannot take back the rights for the GPL'ed version.
On Sat, 27 Mar 2004 14:19:07 +0100 list@akfoerster.de wrote:
Am Samstag, dem 27. Mär 2004 schrieb Paolo Gianrossi:
On Fri, 26 Mar 2004 21:32:29 +0100 Moritz Sinn moritz@freesources.org wrote:
"Axel Schulz" axel@schulz.ph writes:
Hello at all!
I do think that this software does not violate the GPL. And: The "distributer" on http://www.bemme.de seems to be the original author of the software. So, he can do what ever he wants to do with his software, right? Even selling it. ;-)
well, yes. but if he puts it under gpl he has to follow what gpl says.
mmh. afaik no: basically you can do whatever you like if you're the author: imagine the following scenario:
A writes a program P and puts it under the GPL. Then he distributes binary only and doesn't answer to requests of source code. At this point user U wants to do something. But the only person who can legally take action on a copyright/licensing issue is the author (A in our case)... So the only thing U could do is to contact A asking him to sue himself :)
Am i getting this wrong somewhere?
Yes. In your scenario the program was never really released under the GPL: If it's not source, it's no software. When the author sais, that it is released under the GPL, he's simply lying.
But if a program source was released under the GPL, this can never be taken back anymore. The author may decide to release new versions in binary form only, but he cannot take back the rights for the GPL'ed version.
What I meant is that just saying :
"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2, or (at your option) any later version."
in a program doesn't imply that the program comes with sources, or that the author must comply with the GPL as the OP said.
Of course he is lying, and there would be no advantage for anyone if he did something like this, but still I think that many confuse the way licenses work: just saying it's GPL (or whatever else) doesn't imply you *have* to follow the GPL (or whatever else).
Of course, once sources are out, anyone can legally do what the GPL says he can do...
BTW I was considering if this "false gpl" thing could be used to cheat on the concept of "derivative work", but obviously no, as section 3 states.
cheers paolino
I think this is the the real "mess" of the GPL. It is the economical/commercial effect (!!!). Why should people go on and get the software from http://www.bemme.de/ when they can download the same piece of software from any other website (e.g. Volkers ;-)).
You assume that "any other website" carries the same software package. But if I pay for a package that helps me in my daily work, I usually don't put it on my web site. It's silly to do so: - my competitors would have at no cost what I paid for. - I'd waste my bandwidth with no direct advantage for me, but direct disadvantages (see above, see below, plus requests for support I don't want to deal with) - I wouldn't support my software provider that sold me something that's useful for me. I'd better help them remain in business instead.
Free software developers are friendly to users, but users should learn how to be friendly to free software developers. There may be reasons to publish what you paid for, but it's not the general rule.
In any case, our market is a different market than proprietary software, so no company can base its financial plan on a per-copy fee as copies will sonner or later leak around; selling free copies for some time is not bad, though. FWIW I prefer to charge for improvements which are delivered to the clients by making them public.
(see: the broad discussed viral affect of the GPL ([1])).
Please don't call it viral. It's just persistent: it's _my_ work and you can't change the license without my agreement. This is the norm, not the exception. If you call this behaviour "viral", then everything but bsd-like is viral.
/alessandro
Axel Schulz wrote:
I think this is the the real "mess" of the GPL. It is the economical/commercial effect (!!!). Why should people go on and get the
software from http://www.bemme.de/ when they can download the same piece of software from any other website (e.g. Volkers ;-)).
There are numerous reasons why one might give money for the use of a GPL'd software:
-Quality of build (or availability of binaries). You have some assurnace that the build you are getting works, and you don't have to fiddle around on your own.
-Support. The money may give you support for the software, it is perfectly fair that the original author does not provide support to people who have not paid him any money.
-Assurance against ill-effects (quality again). Working with a company trying to establish a reputation, you have at least some assurance that the build you get doesn't have trojans installed and perhaps has undergond some kind of testing program (related to quality of build). Downloading from third-parties you can't be quite certain that the build is proper and/or safe.
-Support of further development. Many people when they get software they plan on using it a long time, and they would like to see that software evolve over that time. The money to the author helps keep that development going.
-Manuals. Everybody loves owning a manual. :)
-Update source. Very popular in Linux distributions, one pays money simply so they have a good server to automatically download updates from.
-Certification. Many businesses may need to get software from approved, or certified vendors (as is the case with the ISO 9000 and several medical institutes.
-Nice supporting assets. It is not required of the GPL that you give supporting assets, such as Graphics, templates, or whatnot along with the software. (This use/are of the GPL has some issues that I'm not too clear on)