Hadron wrote:
> Kelsey Bjarnason <kbjarnason@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> [snips]
>>
>> On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 10:14:58 -0500, George Barca wrote:
>>
>>> Bad choice of words. What I meant was that the only way the give it all
>>> away free system works is if everyone is doing it. Look at free
>>> software for example.
>>> Some person sits at home nights and weekends writing a CD burning
>>> program and then gives away the source for others to use. Now Dell
>>> comes along and packages it as part of pre-installed Linux on a system
>>> and makes a profit.
>>> I personally think the person is an idiot and if the program was good
>>> enough he should protect it and sell it commercially. However if
>>> everyone was just using the program and giving it away, like the author
>>> did, then it wouldn't matter. The problem arises when some make money
>>> off the work of others.
>>
>> Why is he an idiot, and why is someone else making money off it a
>> problem?
>>
>> You need to stop and realize that people write software for essentially
>> two reasons. One of those is to get a reward - fame, cash, what have
>> you. The other is simply to solve a problem, or accomplish some task,
>> or simply do so better than existing options.
>
> You missed the "job of work".
>
> And no "reward and fame or what have you" does not cover that.
>
> And no one wants seom free loader stealing their work when they need to
> make money from that work.
>
> The Government pays for many people to study CS at University. They
> expect income taxes back.
>
>
>>
>> Suppose I write, as you suggest, a better CD burning program (better
>> than
>> K3B? Yeah, right!) The question becomes *why* did I write it? If I
>> wrote it for money, then chances are I wouldn't be distributing it as an
>> open source project. If I just wanted a CD burning app which did
>
> Aha. So you agree OSS licensing can not work if you want to make money
> because people will simply steal the code and your ideas.
>
> Glad we got that one sorted out.
Good that you don't understand that, too. It adds just another item to the
ever growing list of things you know nothing about.
If software is written with a GPL licence and *sold* (with source,
naturally) to a company which needed that exact kind of software, what
incentive would there be for that company to distribute it further?
You know, *nothing* in the GPL requires them to distribute it. And they
probably would not. After all, they paid for it because *they* needed it.
They could have used the same model programming it inhouse, but
contracting it to someone else is commonplace. And this area is by far the
place where *most* software is written.
Now tell me the developer of that software did not get paid, idiot
--
Microsoft's Guide To System Design:
Let it get in YOUR way. The problem for your problem.
|
|
