On Sun, May 11, 2008 at 09:22:23AM -0400, Olin Lathrop wrote: > Byron Jeff wrote: > > The problem is that if you change the license significantly, and end > > users get screwed, with very limited access to source, and little or > > no ability to use that source in any productive way. > > Now you're arguing what a good license should be. "Good" depends on your > goals and measures. The FSF wants to see executable software with no > restrictions. That can be useful, but they ignore or usually not even > acknowledge that enforcing that decreases the choices of the end users. No I'm arguing that licensing is a zero sum game when it comes to rights. Every right that you grant to one group of folks in a transaction takes away a right from another group. > If you really wanted to do something "good" for the end users then I think > using the GPL is not the right approach. The GPL does force source of any > software that is derived from it to be open. However to many that > restriction is too costly, so they don't use GPL code. In the end the goal > of better and lower cost choices for the end users has not been served as > well as it could have been. I'm usually not a fan of the GPL precisely for this reason. The GPL works OK when you're talking about an application, but it fails miserably on infrastructure code (libraries, OSes, etc) for precisely the reasons you outline. In general the LGPL is closer to the right mark for infrastructure. It mandates that changes to the infrastructure have to be propagated, but that use of the infrastructure is unrestricted. It's only failure is in embedded systems where application and infrastructure are comingled as it reverts back to the GPL in that instance. > I was going to stop replying on this thread, but what made me respond was > your implicit statement that not having source to a program means you're > screwed. This is of course totally rediculous. A very tiny minority of end > users might derive some additional advantage from having access to the > source code for a app they are using, but the vast majority wouldn't know > what to do with it, and most of the ones that do have things to get on with > and don't want to bother messing with it. Source code accessibility is way > overrated. It's way overrated until the vendor disappears and something is broken. Or when something is broken and the vendor won't fix it. Or when you need a feature that the vendor isn't interested in implementing. While there may only be a small segment of the user community that falls into those situations, without the source, they have no recourse except to start over with another vendor, or to pony up dollars to try to entice the vendor to help them solve their problem, if they are still around to do it. Everyone isn't you Olin. EmbedInc is clearly a competent, well run, customer oriented company. But unfortunately for every one of you, there are a ton of folks who simply want to get the end users' money and walk away. And my original comment was directed to software that started its life marked as open source. I'm a big believer in the fact if you wrote the software, you can do anything you like with it. The issue always arises when the two cultures clash, because always in the middle of that clash is a developer that wants to take software that has an other or community that wants it freely available and wants to somehow encumber it. That's the change in license I'm talking about. And that's when the end user get screwed. > > If you really want to make things as good as possible for end users, you > need to allow people to make a buck by doing so. Most developers just don't > have the luxury like Richard Stallman has of forgoing compensation for > creating software. If you want to harness their power, then you need to let > them make a buck in the process. I'd much rather see five commercial apps > for a given task than one free one created by university students and > midnight hackers. The competition between the five commercial apps will > keep them on their toes, and because they can afford to pay software > developers, there are far more people working on creating the software you > want. Of course none of this prevent those who want to do it on the side > for free from doing it. If the commercial apps are reasonably priced and > serve the need well, then there is no incentive to create a free app and no > need anyway. You may be right. But that means I have to trust those developers to meet my needs. And while the vast majority of the population has no choice in the matter, there are enough of us out there to fix and augment what we need if necessary, without having to continually pay for the priviege. And the commercial apps are rarely reasonably priced. The happens because of the reverse flow of screwing. End users will simply steal the software that they need and not pay for it. It's wrong. It's awful. It's unfair. And it happens every day. So to compensate commercial developers jack up the price of the legit sales to cover for the stolen copies. > Developing software costs resources. Ultimately the end users of the > software need to pay for those resources somehow. In Richard Stallman's > model, it is difficult to force the end users to pay, so there is less > development with GPL code because the people doing the developing can't > afford it. Actually what happens is that the development is spread over a larger pool of developers each of whom contribute less than full effort to the project. What you miss is that these developers will develop the software regardless of being paid or not, because the software meets their own needs. By sharing the source, they can share the work required to get the development off the ground. It works because the genesis of the software was never based in money, it's based in need. > If someone really wanted to take the moral high ground and try to provide > the best possible situation for end users of software, he'd let people use > his code any way they want. This is basically what I try to do with my > source except in cases where I fear it will cost me compared to not making > it free. The problem with your high moral ground is that virtually instantaneously someone unscrupulous will take your code and embrace, extend, and suppress the modification for their own benefit. What better way to make a profit than to take something you get for free, value add, then sell it through artificial scarcity? Then no one but them gets the benefit of the modifications. That's why the LGPL is nearly the correct middle ground. Any developer can use LGPL infrastructure to build new stuff. They code they add to the infrastructure is shared with everyone downstream, but code that just uses the infrastructure does not have to be. That's equity for both the developer who contributes the LGPL code, and the developer that uses the LGPL code to build their own projects. There's no right answer in a philosphy discussion, simply points of view. If users trusts the developers, then simply buying the product is the right way to go. However, there are several levels of costs associated with that decision. Same with using open source infrastructure, including the quality of code issue you raised above. BAJ > > > ******************************************************************** > Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products > (978) 742-9014. Gold level PIC consultants since 2000. > -- > http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive > View/change your membership options at > http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist