Re: Economics and the GPL

On Mon, 10 Jun 2002 14:37, Anthony Taylor wrote:

> Deven T. Corzine wrote:
>
> >The code still benefits more people if more people are using it, even
> >if some of those users are paying for proprietary versions of the
> >code.  And a proprietary version doesn't need to offer "many"
> >compelling features, only a single one.  And that feature might well
> >be support or documentation, not necessarily code.  Anything the user
> >is willing to pay for.
>
> This is fine, until someone in a dominant position takes the code and
> extends it in an incompatible fashion.  This is what Microsoft
> attempted with Kerberos last year.  In this way, because of their
> current market dominance, they can make it painful to use any version
> of Kerberos but their own, thereby making worthless the original code.

I may be wrong, but I do not believe Microsoft used any open-source code
when they made their changes last year.  Regardless, they made a
proprietary change to the protocol that not even the GPL would have been
able to stop.

> Please define "fantastically successful."  First is Cygnus, a private
> company purchased by Red Hat.  Cygnus lasted a decade customizing and
> porting GCC to new platforms.  Cygnus never made a killing, but it was
> profitable those 10 years.
>
> Red Hat itself is not doing badly.  The fact it is still around is a
> testament to the strength of their business model, when other OS
> companies like Be have gone out of business.  ("But Be was driven out
> of business by Linux!" I hear you cry.  Rubbish. Jean-Louis Gassee
> himself attributed Be's demise to Microsoft's stronghold, in
> http://lists.essential.org/1999/info-policy-notes/msg00005.html .)

Using GAAP, I believe RedHat has not made a profit in any quarter.

> Right now, GPLd software will not make many millionaires.  I will not
> deny that.  But what gives programmers the right to be millionaires?
> Most plumbers or electricians will never be millionaires.  Neither will
> most accountants, nor teachers, nor even civil engineers.  What's wrong
> with just making a good living?

Nothing gives them the right (U.S. Constitution) to be millionaires, but
there are no laws against them becoming millionaires.  (Tax laws not
included. :))

Sean
--------------
[email protected]