Re: bias

On Wed, 5 Jun 2002, Tony Lambregts wrote:

> why doesn't the same reasoning apply to restraunts, garages, 
> lawnservices, maidservices, lawyers...

I think it applies more to "free stuff" than services -- services often 
exist for the sole purpose of transferring labor to the service and away 
from the client, creating more free time for the client.  Some people are 
willing to pay for that, others will spend the time to avoid paying.

> > 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.
> >
> Right now Microsoft owns something in excess of 90 percent of the 
> desktop market but people still buy RedHat. Now I know that they have 
> yet to make a substantial profit but the fact remains that people are 
> buying the product.  Part of the reason for this may be simply good will 
> but part of it is because the provide a nice package that includes 
> support. Now they are doing this with a very small market share and lets 
> face it most of the people using it are not Joe Public.  So it stands to 
> reason that they had a larger maket share thier profits would be larger. 

Read what I said again -- it threatens the ability of companies to derive 
any stable revenue stream FROM SOFTWARE DEVELOPMENT.  Yes, Red Hat makes 
money selling pretty boxed software and support.  That's not the software 
development work that's providing their revenue.  Imagine if Red Hat only 
offered ISO images for download, and had an online payment system to give 
donations if you like the software enough.  Suppose even that they only 
sold copies for download and offered no free downloads, but all the code 
was redistributable due to the GPL.  Do you really think they'd be making a 
profit this way?  Of course not.  A few people would pay out of good will, 
but most would download from an alternate site redistributing the code if 
they couldn't download it for free from Red Hat.

Software development may make Red Hat's product more enticing, and may help 
their bottom line indirectly, but only because they make pretty boxes and 
offer services that they are profitable.  If they did software development 
and nothing else, they'd probably be out of business.

> Most people do not know what to do with source code.  Hell I make a 
> modest income from installing software for people that don't know how to 
> do that. And the thing is that GPL says nothing about having to give 
> away the binaries for free.  It only says that if you sell the binaries 
> you must provide the source. So  that user or someone else has to know 
> what to do with the source code and make binaries that will work (and 
> support them) or the average user won't use it. Now you can pick that nit.

No, most people don't know what to do with source code.  But it only takes 
one person who DOES to build a nice binary package that any newbie can 
install in a snap.  Once that binary package becomes easily available for 
free, who's likely to pay for a copy if you sell binaries when similar 
binaries are available for free?

Of course, this is exactly why Transgaming wasn't happy about the prospect 
of Debian packaging the AFPL version of WineX.  The source code wasn't much 
of a threat to their revenue stream, but an easy-to-use Debian package was.

> You want a crystall ball. Life is full of uncertainties.  Computers 
> eliminated some jobs like  telephone operators and accountants, Sure 
> there are still some telephone operators and even more accountants but 
> the the job is not the same as it was 20 or 30 years ago.  Now if you 
> expect the programming profession to  remain static (*GPL or not) you 
> are deluded. *GPL changes the nature of the game for sure but the need 
> for programmers will still be there even if it did eliminate proprietory 
> software.

If my profession becomes naturally obsolete because of future advancements 
in computing (like self-programming computers), then so be it.  However, if 
computers continue to require skilled labor, which can no longer earn a 
decent living because of the GPL, then I'll have a reason to be upset, just 
like factory workers have reason to be upset about imports from countries 
where the workers are so poorly paid that they're virtually slave labor...

Deven