Women in Technology

Hear us Roar



Article:
  The Strange Case of the Disappearing Open Source Vendors
Subject:   Not at all.
Date:   2002-07-06 13:42:51
From:   brettglass
Response to: Comments sidesteps the point of this article???

You write:


> The GPL is about getting things done. It's about solving problems. It's also up front. There's not hidden agenda. You can read the license and choose for yourself.


This is absolutely incorrect. The GPL is anything BUT "upfront." In fact, its preamble is intentionally deceptive. It states that the purpose of the license is to promote "freedom," when in fact its purpose is to deny freedom -- and, by doing so, destroy programmers of commercial software and their businesses.

Full Threads Oldest First

Showing messages 1 through 1 of 1.

  • Not at all.
    2002-07-17 21:31:56  john_betelgeuse [View]

    > This is absolutely incorrect. The GPL is
    > anything BUT "upfront."

    Wrong. The GPL is remarkably easy to read,
    and quite clear, for a legal document.

    > In fact, its preamble is intentionally
    > deceptive.

    No, it's not.

    You may believe what you want, but the preamble
    is not deceptive.

    Surprisingly large numbers of people, however,
    do not understand that the word "free" has
    more than one definition. You may be one
    of them.

    > It states that the purpose of the license
    > is to promote "freedom,"

    And, it does so admirably. Due to the GPL,
    my freedoms are very well protected.

    > when in fact its purpose is to deny
    > freedom --

    A bald, inaccurate and totally unsupported
    assertion.

    The purpose of the GPL is indeed to protect
    freedom, your belief otherwise not with standing.

    > and, by doing so, destroy programmers
    > of commercial software and their businesses.

    Wrong again. The GPL is not designed to
    destroy commercial software and the software
    business.

    It MAY eventually change the software business
    model . . . but it will not destroy it.

    A mechanic gets paid per hour of work. There
    is absolutely no reason why software producers
    cannot be paid the same way. And as such, there
    is absolutely no reason why that software cannot
    be licensed under the GPL, since after you get
    paid, you're done with it.

    The new business model would be, however, rather
    different from the existing model, where a
    software producer can work for a fixed amount
    of time, then coast for years afterwards.

    While not changing the cost and functionality
    of software much at all, a model where software
    producers get paid for their WORK, not because
    they own a piece of software, would make the
    competitive playing field much fairer, and
    much less fragmented by proprietary file
    formats and networking protocols.

    Or would you prefer a software-like model
    in your automotive braking systems, where
    everytime you hit the pedal, you gotta pay
    your mechanic again?