Re: GPL vs. sweatshops (was Re: Bias)

At 03:50 PM 6/11/02 -0400, Deven T. Corzine wrote:
> > It seems to me that BSD software could have some of the same economic
> > harms that GPL software could.  Take Brett Glass's example of GCC.  If
> > GCC was good enough that no one was willing to pay for a better compiler,
> > then compiler writers would be in much less demand.  That is true whether
> > GCC is GPL or BSD/X11.
>
>I disagree.  If GCC were under the BSD license, proprietary companies could
>developed improved versions, with incremental improvements over the public
>version.  As long as those improvements are worthwhile, they could stand to
>profit from making them.  With the GPL, their efforts would be unable to
>return a profit to justify the investment...

Yes, but the question is, if the improvements are good enough. I think most 
of free software developers would still prefer to use GCC. Even most 
proprietary softwares would probably still use GCC. This is because better 
compilers often only generate faster code, and speed is not that much 
important for most softwares.

On the other hand, companies improving the GCC would not return their 
strategic improvements to the GCC public tree. So who would benefit from 
it? Only 2 groups:

1. The company.
2. Clients who are able to pay for the improved compiler.

On the other hand the GPL demands all improvements to be returned for the 
benefit of all.
In that sense the GPL is more democratic because EVERYONE benefits and not 
just a small priviledged minority.
I think the GPL is a good way to democratize technologie.

Roland