Re: bias...

On Tue, 4 Jun 2002, Roland wrote:

> At 05:08 PM 6/4/02 -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> 
> >How can we support the GPL and still prevent such disaster?
> 
> I think you have some valid points in your arguments, but on the other hand 
> it's not true that the programmer profession is endangered. At most, ONE 
> business model of programming is endangered, and that is, the one where the 
> PROGRAM is sold. But you can still make money by bespoken software, or 
> being hired in a company(like myself) to program for company specific 
> problems.

No, several business models are endangered, not just software-as-product.  
Basically, any business model which demands SOME compensation from users 
(whether a little or a lot) is threatened by the GPL, which ensures that 
the user can get it for free from someone else.  "Free" is very powerful; 
people often go out of their way to get something free, even if paying 
would have been cheaper than the cost of going out of their way.

Forcing software to be available for free encourages users to indulge this 
propensity for seeing freebies, and threatens the ability of companies to 
derive any stable revenue stream from software development, which in turn 
makes it more difficult to fund development.  Sure, there will still be 
work for programmers, but maybe not enough.  And plenty of software that 
could benefit the users may not get written.  It's a nasty Catch-22.

And don't pick nits with me about how the GPL doesn't require the code be 
made available to the general public.  I'm aware of this, but in effect, it 
doesn't matter.  All it takes is ONE user to release it into the wild, so 
it's bound to happen for most GPL software, sooner or later.  The problem 
is that the GPL requires that anyone with the software be able to give it 
away for free if they choose, which negates any profit incentive.

I'm not saying that doomsday WILL come to pass, but I haven't seen any 
compelling arguments that it WON'T.  I've seen the arguments; they contain 
implicit assumptions which may not hold in an all-GPL world, and they're 
not compelling arguments.  They read more like wishful rationalizations 
trying to come to a predetermined conclusion, because a negative conclusion 
is clearly unacceptable.  Well, reality will take its course whether or not 
the conclusion is an acceptable one.

I'd like something more solid than wishful thinking to believe that my 
profession will still be viable in 10, 20, 50 or 100 years...

Deven