My alternative busines model

[Rui Miguel Seabra]

On Tue, Dec 03, 2002 at 07:33:28PM +0100, Niall Douglas wrote:
> > I want to give you an equally abstract reason why what you try to
> > achieve will never result in a free software license.  It might not be
> > your intent to provide a free software license, but I hope that the
> > reason is good enough for you to see why we don't think it is an
> > alternative to free software either.
> No it isn't an alternative for free software - it's an alternative 
> for proprietary. I would fully expect and indeed encourage free 
> software to continue doing what it's doing.

Thank you, that's what we will continue to do.
We also already have an alternative to proprietary software:
  http://www.fsf.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

Further suggested readings:
  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/shouldbefree.html
  http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

> That's a good point, but where in the proprietary world do you hear 
> of 4000 pieces of software bundled on a CD? The answer is outside 
> shareware, you don't - it's a unique ability afforded by the 
> economics of free software.

Further suggested readings:
  The frequently updated http://www.dwheeler.com/oss_fs_why.html

> No, you've not read the formulae closely enough. It's like writing 
> C++ in that it's not a good idea to inherits from too many things - 
> same will go for this system. The likelihood is even on a large 
> project, you'd pay royalties to a maximum of two or three people. 
> Remember - it's the *code* which is protected not the algorithm.

Why does it need protection?
What is the pratical difference from an algorith to a high level
language? Are they not possibly even the exact same thing? I can write
algorithms in C (for instance, abstracting to do some stuff like
malloc to make things simpler to read).

> No it's not what free software needs but then I do think free 
> software is 98% best for the industry. It is, however, very much what 
> proprietary needs whilst keeping compatible with free software. I 
> also think it provides the entrepreneurial force missing with free 
> software.

I'd say that most entrepreneurial force missing with software libre is
not there because they do not want to make business benefitting the
consumer but because they want to get rich^W^Wmake a living.

That can only change _for_real_ if we all unite in an effort to promote
software libre, which is not something you will help by trying to get
someone here to agree with you. You won't. That's mostly spam :)

We subscribe this mailing because of software libre, what it is and what
it means, and are willing to help you understand it. We're not here to
follow the latest trend in software, so we won't run in flocks to Yet
Another Try to reap the technical benefits of software libre while still
being proprietary.

Cheers, Rui
software libre is about
list because of software libre