> Ironically, the failure of my competitor is
> likely to kill my company, too -- EVEN IF MY
> PRODUCT IS SUPERIOR.
Part of quality is the price. But in all
cases, the judgement as to whether a piece of
software is inferior or superior lies with the
user, not you.
If people switch the GPL'ed version, it is by
definition because the GPL'ed version is
superior.
> The situation gets worse still if the
> GPL enters the picture. If the competitor's
> code is released under the GPL, I cannot
> so much as LOOK at it.
This is typical FUD and misrepresentation by
the anti-GPL crowd. The GPL is based soley
in copyright law. There are no intellectual
property law aspects in the GPL.
You can freely use any ideas you find in a
GPL'ed program. You simply cannot use the
code itself.
> Thus, the sudden release of software
> from companies that go out of business
> either into the public domain or (worse)
> under the GPL can cause a chain reaction
> which destroys any incentives to create
> or improve products in that category.
The incentive is to make money by improving
products of that category. If you cannot
improve the product, either due to product
maturity, or you own inability to see a way
to improve, then you *should* go out of
business!
And frankly, I'd prefer you to go out of
business, rather than add unneccesary and
undesirable frippery to programs that don't
need it, then having to use dirty tricks like
secret file format churn to force your customers
to give you more money.
Your business has no right to survive. Compete,
change businesses, or get out of business.
That's how our system works.
> Giving away the software of failed
> companies could turn every corporate
> failure into a disaster for everyone else.
No it wouldn't. It MIGHT prove to be a disaster
for one particular company, but many more
people (the users) would benefit, than would
loose out in this situation.
Most of your arguments have been soundly
rebutted by:
http://www.cpi.seas.gwu.edu/oss/cpi_rebuttal.pdf
|
