Re: Economics and the GPL

John Alvord <[email protected]> wrote:
> 
> Deven - can you give some explanation of why Transgaming recently
> relased much of the "disputed" source code to the ReWind (X11) tree.
> They didn't release (what I consider to be) their core improvements
> but just about everything else.
> 
> What do you suppose the motivation was?

Well, it certainly wasn't due to LGPL requiring this.  Maybe
they were coerced? :)
 
> I had the sudden thought that the argument was parallel to the
> argument been conservationists (who feel the natural world should be
> protected) and the capitalists (who feel it should be exploited). The
> "natural world" parallel is the universe of GPL code.

If you are going to use that analogy, a more apt one would be the conservationists
vs loggers in the NorthWest (US).  Becomes much more complicated a problem when
people's livelyhoods are at stake.
 

Roland <[email protected]> wrote:

> Stop pointing your fingers on the *GPL. It seems that everyone takes the
> damage done by M$ as something natural. I doubt that the damage the GPL
> will do, if any will ever compare to what was caused my monopolistic
> practices based on proprietary licenses...
> 
> I dare you to show me any damage of the GPL that is comparable.

Not yet, but that doesn't mean I have to approve of M$ tactics (ie exclusionary
ones) being used, even if it were being used on M$.  
 
> I think its not only M$, proprietary software of other vendors can also
> have adverse effect. Did you know that some software companies go bankrupt
> and leave their customers without any support? Since they don't have access
> to the source code of the programs, they have to buy another proprietary
> solution and start from square one...
> Nice, isn't it?

It's not like OS programs are immune from this either.  I dropped elm as a mailer
because it wasn't handling various stuff correctly, and it wasn't worth my effort
to fix it the problem (switching to mutt was easier).  Not even sure what the
point is anyway, as you can make the source available without giving the license
out to freely distribute and still get around this particular example.
 


Roland <[email protected]> wrote:
> At 01:49 PM 6/10/02 -0500, Sean C. Farley wrote:
> >Using GAAP, I believe RedHat has not made a profit in any quarter.
> 
> The question is, if this is the fault of the GPL or of M$.

Not sure if you can blame m$ that much, as most people who are running linux do
so despite M$.  GPL just makes sure that they don't get any bundling revenue
from vendors.

> How much profit did IBM do with OS2? Nothing

Unless you have internal knowledge of IBM's books, I wouldn't make
that statement.  OS/2 is *probably* eeking out a profit today, given
its price and lack of development dollars and the fact that IBM is
still offering it for sale (not like big blue would still be funding
a huge loss leader).

> and this was because of a well known monopolist...

It's not like IBM played their cards right either.  In any case, I think
the point was if you are going to point to a success, don't use a company
that is losing money as an example of success.

-r