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!

It depend on what you are trying to do. Obviously if you are 
pure consulting company it doesn't matter if you release the
code under GPL since you will get paid anyway. Sure it will
probably lower the potential market since some client might
not like the code being released at all.

Such companies are really unintresting to whether the GPL is
good or not since obviously a pure consulting company can
live in any market.

If you are not a pure consulting company the possibillities of
adapting will in most cases be quite small.
 
> > > 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.

If you use that definition all private property are undemocratic.
So the point is still please don't us the word. I (and I guess most
other people) doesn't define democratic in that broad sense. So using
the word, confuses more than help. Again please us other words.

Futhermore most democratic societies have voted to allow private property
as well as intellectual property like copyright. So not making your
code available to non-payers is explictly allowed.
 
> >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. 

Again using the most broad defintion of the word you can find only
confuses. Normally only things like child care support that are
only given to people with children are consider privileges.

The fact that somebody earns to little be able to get everything
he wants or needs doesn't make somebody unprivileged.

Please refrain from using value loaded words like democratic
and privileges it confuses more than it helps.

> 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!

Please M$ == "Bad" doesn't imply that GPL == "Good".

Open source in general might be a boost, true.
But even if this indeed was true, it doesn't follow
that the GPL is the best license.

> >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.

I'm not supposing anything. Beside the proprietory code might
contain things very few people have any need for so not implementing
it will not really hurt that much will it?