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

On Tue, 11 Jun 2002 20:35, Roland wrote:

> 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!

How have any companies adapted to WINE's license change?  What companies
have used GPL code that they themselves did not write with substantial
success?  What does their revenue look like?

BTW, when I say substantial, I mean that they are at least breaking even
or making a profit.  I could have said obvious, but I felt that that
word was too broad.  Living off of venture capital does not count.

> > > 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.

Forcing others to return improvements is not something I would classify
as democratic.

Sean
--------------
[email protected]