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

At 11:27 PM 6/11/02 +0200, Patrik Stridvall wrote:
> > On the other hand the GPL demands all improvements to be
> > returned for the
> > benefit of all.
>
>Which means that the might not be written at all since there
>will be MUCH more difficult to get a ROI (return on investment).
>
>So instead of the non-strategic code, you are likely to get nothing.
>Is that better?

Experience with WINE and other projects shows that it can also work the 
other way round. Companies will decide to use the available GPL codebase 
and adapt their business model accordingly. Maybe it will be harder to get 
a ROI but on the other hand you have to invest less money!

> > 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.
>
>Please don't use the word democratic. It has nothing to
>do that that all. If you mean fair say that.

Ok, I know you are not a native english speaker, so I will paste the 
definition from www.m-w.com:
One meaning of democratic is:
3 : relating to, appealing to, or available to the broad masses of the people

In this sense the GPL is democratic because by forcing you to return the 
improvements it ensures that they are available to the masses. On the other 
side you have proprietary software which is only available to those who pay 
for it.
An analogy would be subway x car.

>I'm also unsure what you mean by priviliged minority?
>The clients paid a company to write improvements for them
>so they HAVE paid for they get. You on the other hand haven't.
>So I wouldn't consider it a priviliges.

It is a privilege in the sense that not everyone is capable of paying it. 
Even in the US there are a lot of schools complaining about M$ new 
licensing policies for which they don't have the money. For many startup 
companies it is a big burden to buy M$ software in order to be compatible 
with the rest of the world. I wonder how much money a company could spare 
if it only had to buy the hardware and get all software for free. In this 
sense the GPL could also be an economic booster!

>Sure you and others might have work hard to write whatever
>the improvements was applied to, but still you still have the
>code so they don't really get any special priviliges that
>you haven't do they?

Well you are supposing that the public tree will always be able to catch up 
quickly to the proprietary version. I wouldn't be so sure about that.

Roland