Re: [ox-en] Germ of a new form of society or germ of a new form of business?
- From: "Niall Douglas" <s_fsfeurope2 nedprod.com>
- Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 01:03:25 -0000
On 25 Jan 2004 at 23:34, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
If one continues to think that GPLed software is free software
despite it being so obviously not so then I can only conclude that
either that person is deluded or a zealot.
I disagree with you Niall but I don't think you are deluded or a
zealot -- and I probably wouldn't call you one even if I did. Consider
for a moment that maybe folks aren't as confused and uncritical as you
think because your conclusions are *not* as obvious as you imply.
Perhaps. What is fundamental to my way of thinking on this subject is
morality (which I define as that which maximises self-
sustainability). To believe the GPL is a desirous-for-all license is
thus immoral to me, and hence one finds oneself lacking a framework
of expression other than religious. It is more a failing of the
English language than anything else.
I hardly trivialise their position and especially not influence.
If saying that anyone who holds an idea is either deluded or a zealot
is not trivializing a position, I'm not sure what is. You are not
trivializing the effect of the position but you aren't willing to
admit that a sane, critical, non-deluded person could hold it.
The majority of the west's population believe that globalisation is a
good thing. They are sane & critical people but they are deluded.
Why? Because they accept, without thinking through thoroughly, what
they consider their leaders tell them to think. A good proportion of
those leaders are zealots, infested with zeal mostly motivated by an
elitist selfish worldview of how it is their right to become even
wealthier while ever more lives are destroyed.
It is a similar situation with the GPL. It looks good on first
contact and the mythos and culture which surrounds it also appeal to
those seeking an alternative to proprietary exploitation. But let's
face it - it is not a panacea and worse, applying it willy-nilly to
everything is catastrophic for certain kinds of software.
As you know, I fear the consequences of the GPL which are extremely
bad for creating and maintaining innovation. It must not be allowed
to become the de facto software license.
You probably already know this Niall but the GPL already is the de
facto Free Software license. Believe it or not, this isn't just
because FOSS developers are deluded and joined the cult of RMS.
Developers think hard about the effects of their licenses and make a
decision about what they think are best and many choose the GPL: smart
critical developers even.
As a means to an end of preventing commercial exploitation I agree
with the GPL. However it still causes massive duplication of the
exact same functionality which I have outlined as one of three most
pernicious failings in current software production methodology.
As I have said many times, the true engineer chooses the best tools
available. Not for political, legal nor philosophical grounds nor
even cost within reason. If one doesn't do that, one must accept
they are a substandard programmer & engineer and must especially
accept that one has absolutely no right whatsoever to preach their
superiority to others who are less self-castrated.
So let me get this straight: Anyone who doesn't fully agree with your
method of evaluating software is a bad programmer, a shoddy engineer,
and self-castrated? This sounds more like noise and trolling than
anything else -- which is too bad because you have some good points.
Please don't degenerate into this.
It may be uncomfortable for programmers to realise this. Imagine if
you will an artist painting a picture and that artist refuses to use
the colour green or anything containing the colour green because they
are politically opposed to its use.
Can that picture ever be as good art as one which does use the colour
green?
business knows that permanently locking yourself out of commercial
use is stupid - you are cutting off your hands to spite your face.
The GPL does not affect commercial use. I am currently consulting for
a company whose core business is developing and expanding upon GPL
software.
For me freeing software means also being able to commercialise it or
do anything at all reasonable with it so long as you return the
enhancements back to the public freely. It's also particularly hard
to be entrepreneurial in a services market which tend to lower
margins over time to the lowest possible unless there's a monopoly.
I agree that with time all the bread & butter code will be free
software eg; OS's, office suites etc. However what incentive is there
to tie together this bread & butter code (without reimplementing it)
in new weird & wonderful ways no one had thought of ie; what
incentive is there to take *risk* when all software is under the GPL?
The reality is that under a services funding model you will always do
the absolute minimum necessary to comply with the contract. You will
not revolutionise things, not tip up the apple cart nor anything like
it because it takes longer and is more complex.
No, the GPL is extremely bad for innovation and worse, it stops
people being innovative by reusing GPL code.
If Windows didn't cost anything at all, I bet there'd be far fewer
Linux boxes around.
That's clearly the case. But other things (TCO, upgrade paths,
security, accountability, dependence, etc.) also play a role. What's
your point here?
My point is that the only reason why the GPL is in such favour is
because most people operate in a "anything but Microsoft" mode.
Interestingly we're seeing less of that with the new Apple's already.
People will always be people. If you ask the average person if they'd
like to make money from the work they'd do anyway for fun, they'll
tend to say yes.
The person who creates a form of free software which retains the
entrepreneurial spirit will become the next Microsoft. The FSF and
GNU will scream to high heaven about it, but their time will be over.
Cheers,
Niall