Learn about Linux
Download Linux
Get Linux helpSpecial Offers
Feature
Gates: GPL will eat your economy, but BSD's cool
By on
April 22, 2002 (8:00:00 AM)
Share
Print
Comments
-
By John Lettice of The Register -
Bill Gates took another shot at the Open Source question last week, and came up with some interesting new spin. Essentially, if your country standardises on Linux, then you're not going to have any IT jobs in your country, says Bill.
Bill Gates took another shot at the Open Source question last week, and came up with some interesting new spin. Essentially, if your country standardises on Linux, then you're not going to have any IT jobs in your country, says Bill.
Gates was taking some pre-vetted (we presume) questions at last week's Government Leaders Conference in Seattle, and had been asked about the strengths and weaknesses associated with the adoption of Open Source in governments. He'd already taken a pop at this subject in his introduction, and given that the questions overall were fairly skewed in the direction of IT in developing countries, it does rather look like Microsoft had decided it was going to ram the message home hard to the people it sees as its future growth area.
Here's what he had to say in the keynote:
"One thing that we get people discussing with us a lot is how to create jobs around IT activity. And I think you will see some countries who really believe in the capitalistic approach; that is, that software should generate jobs, and government R&D should generate jobs, so that government R&D should be done on a basis that it can be commercialized.
"There's a faction against that, the so-called general GPL source license Free Software Foundation, that says that these other countries other than the U.S. should devote R&D dollars in the so-called open approach, that means you can never commercialize that software. And it is an interesting choice to deny -- for a country to deny itself the benefits of these high-paying jobs and the kind of taxes that let countries fund their universities, and fund general research that then goes to renew that pool of commercial R&D. Clearly there's an ecosystem there that has worked extremely well in the United States, and has probably been the unique thing that has let that push forward. And there is now a recognition that it's really a question of policy of allowing the so-called capitalistic approach to win the day there."
Microsoft's view of the GPL as some kind of plague, virally infecting everything it touches, is well-known. The company has outlawed it in its licence agreements, described it as a cancer, communistic, un-American, and now here's Bill putting a spin on that last one for the benefit of the reps of developing economies attending GLC. You think it's attractive because it's cheap and flexible? Well, if you want to carry on living in the pre-IT age, just you go ahead.
In his answer, Bill kicks off by misunderstanding the point of Open Source, and then misrepresents the kind of source access Microsoft offers:
"Well, there are many different aspects here. One question is: Do you need the source code of an operating system as a user of that operating system? That is, should you be paying your people to study the intricacies of how the operating system is built and stuff like that? And the basic answer is no. That's something that for a few percent of the price of the PC you can buy a commercial operating system, where all the work of testing it, supporting it, delivering it, is included for a few percent of that price of the PC.
"For customers who want source code -- universities, large customers -- we provide that. But 90-some percent of that time, that's more a -- okay, it's nice, I have it, you know, should I ever need it. That's fair. So source availability is not the big issue. That's -- you have got source availability from us and others, and it's not much needed in any case."
Microsoft's source access programs are of course very limited, "look but don't touch" affairs, but may have some utility in the sense that teams of college kids could wind up helping Microsoft figure out what some of the stuff actually does. Ex-Intel v.p. Steve McGeady's testimony for the current trial for example describes an incident where a team from Intel and one from Microsoft had to expend considerable effort doing this to get Intel's Indeo to work. This was while they were on the same side.
But back at the podium, Bill is drawing a clear line between freedom and Marxist insurgents:
"Then you get to the issue of who is going to be the most innovative. You know, will it be capitalism, or will it be just people working at night? There's always been a free software world. And you should understand Microsoft thinks free software is a great thing. Software written in universities should be free software. But it shouldn't be GPL software. GPL software is like this thing called Linux, where you can never commercialize anything around it; that is, it always has to be free. And, you know, that's just a philosophy. Some said philosophy wasn't around much anymore, but it's still there. And so that's where we part company."
He does, however, have some good words to say about BSD, which seems to have been deemed by Microsoft to be the non-threatening alternative that can be allowed to live. Not least because it's esoteric enough for the transcribers of his speech to get it wrong every time:
"We say there should be an eco-system so something like VSB [BSD], which is a free form of UNIX, but it's not -- doesn't have this GPL with it, versus Linux which does -- there's a big contrast. A government can fund research work on BFP [BSD], UNIX, and still have commercial companies in their country start off around that type of work. You know, technology policies like biotech -- you only -- if your universities are doing work that can be commercialized, you will have IT jobs in your country. And if they are not, then fine, just say that farming is your thing, or whatever it is. All the taxes will be paid by those guys or something -- I don't know. And the farmers will go home at night and work on the source code. (Laughter.)"
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of BSD (ESB?), we accept, but Bill is kind of saying it's perfectly reasonable for governments and universities to work it and Unix. But we expect he'll be singing a different tune if they take him at his word.
Here's what he had to say in the keynote:
"One thing that we get people discussing with us a lot is how to create jobs around IT activity. And I think you will see some countries who really believe in the capitalistic approach; that is, that software should generate jobs, and government R&D should generate jobs, so that government R&D should be done on a basis that it can be commercialized.
"There's a faction against that, the so-called general GPL source license Free Software Foundation, that says that these other countries other than the U.S. should devote R&D dollars in the so-called open approach, that means you can never commercialize that software. And it is an interesting choice to deny -- for a country to deny itself the benefits of these high-paying jobs and the kind of taxes that let countries fund their universities, and fund general research that then goes to renew that pool of commercial R&D. Clearly there's an ecosystem there that has worked extremely well in the United States, and has probably been the unique thing that has let that push forward. And there is now a recognition that it's really a question of policy of allowing the so-called capitalistic approach to win the day there."
Microsoft's view of the GPL as some kind of plague, virally infecting everything it touches, is well-known. The company has outlawed it in its licence agreements, described it as a cancer, communistic, un-American, and now here's Bill putting a spin on that last one for the benefit of the reps of developing economies attending GLC. You think it's attractive because it's cheap and flexible? Well, if you want to carry on living in the pre-IT age, just you go ahead.
In his answer, Bill kicks off by misunderstanding the point of Open Source, and then misrepresents the kind of source access Microsoft offers:
"Well, there are many different aspects here. One question is: Do you need the source code of an operating system as a user of that operating system? That is, should you be paying your people to study the intricacies of how the operating system is built and stuff like that? And the basic answer is no. That's something that for a few percent of the price of the PC you can buy a commercial operating system, where all the work of testing it, supporting it, delivering it, is included for a few percent of that price of the PC.
"For customers who want source code -- universities, large customers -- we provide that. But 90-some percent of that time, that's more a -- okay, it's nice, I have it, you know, should I ever need it. That's fair. So source availability is not the big issue. That's -- you have got source availability from us and others, and it's not much needed in any case."
Microsoft's source access programs are of course very limited, "look but don't touch" affairs, but may have some utility in the sense that teams of college kids could wind up helping Microsoft figure out what some of the stuff actually does. Ex-Intel v.p. Steve McGeady's testimony for the current trial for example describes an incident where a team from Intel and one from Microsoft had to expend considerable effort doing this to get Intel's Indeo to work. This was while they were on the same side.
But back at the podium, Bill is drawing a clear line between freedom and Marxist insurgents:
"Then you get to the issue of who is going to be the most innovative. You know, will it be capitalism, or will it be just people working at night? There's always been a free software world. And you should understand Microsoft thinks free software is a great thing. Software written in universities should be free software. But it shouldn't be GPL software. GPL software is like this thing called Linux, where you can never commercialize anything around it; that is, it always has to be free. And, you know, that's just a philosophy. Some said philosophy wasn't around much anymore, but it's still there. And so that's where we part company."
He does, however, have some good words to say about BSD, which seems to have been deemed by Microsoft to be the non-threatening alternative that can be allowed to live. Not least because it's esoteric enough for the transcribers of his speech to get it wrong every time:
"We say there should be an eco-system so something like VSB [BSD], which is a free form of UNIX, but it's not -- doesn't have this GPL with it, versus Linux which does -- there's a big contrast. A government can fund research work on BFP [BSD], UNIX, and still have commercial companies in their country start off around that type of work. You know, technology policies like biotech -- you only -- if your universities are doing work that can be commercialized, you will have IT jobs in your country. And if they are not, then fine, just say that farming is your thing, or whatever it is. All the taxes will be paid by those guys or something -- I don't know. And the farmers will go home at night and work on the source code. (Laughter.)"
Not exactly a ringing endorsement of BSD (ESB?), we accept, but Bill is kind of saying it's perfectly reasonable for governments and universities to work it and Unix. But we expect he'll be singing a different tune if they take him at his word.
All Content copyright 2002 The Register
Comments
on Gates: GPL will eat your economy, but BSD's coolNote: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.
>>>>The dingbat talks about government research funded by tax dollars and says this is "capitialistic" - this guy has a few screws loose. True capitalism is strictly private sector with NO government involvement at all but what do you expect from twisted minds like Gates'?
Where do you think BSD comes from? It came from UC at Berkeley (a public institution). From BSD came SUN micro.
Where do you think SUN Microsystem comes from? It's originally stands for Stanford University Network --- even though it's a private university, it's hard to imagine that none of those scientists involved didn't take a single cent of public research grant.
It's probably true that Berkeley and Stanford get a financial cut from BSD and SUN.
Where do you think BSD comes from? It came from UC at Berkeley (a public institution). From BSD came SUN micro.
Where do you think SUN Microsystem comes from? It's originally stands for Stanford University Network --- even though it's a private university, it's hard to imagine that none of those scientists involved didn't take a single cent of public research grant.
It's probably true that Berkeley and Stanford get a financial cut from BSD and SUN.
I wasn't trying to say that government involvement was necessarily bad - just pointing out that true capitalism in a project is 100% private sector - negating Gates' claim that BSD is purely capitalistic - it's not.
True capitalism doesn't exist in real life.
Alas. Not yet.
It's actually alot more than a few percent. WinXP Pro full license = $299 ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/pro/howtobuy/pr icingretail.asp ), whereas you can build a really nice machine for under $1000.
PC vendors don't pay retail price from MS for the OSes they install on their machines. I think that's what he meant.
While this is true if the cost of a WinXP Pro license for Dell is $100 and a base workstation with said OS sells for $999 with monitor, etc. Then that's 10% of the total cost. In my book thats still more than a "few percent".
No way Dell is paying Microsoft $100 for a _bundled_ version of Windows XP pro, I think somewhere in between $10 and $20 is more accurate.
So why the hell are we paying as much as we are? LOL I know, quantity, but it just shows ya how much the software is really worth.
"No way Dell is paying Microsoft $100 for a _bundled_ version of Windows XP pro, I think somewhere in between $10 and $20 is more accurate."
That's the stated price - keep in mind, most OEMs will respond that you're not paying for any of the software when you buy a PC from them - that it's "free". It's not, it's a hidden cost. Dell and the other OEMs, under further inquiry, will probably state a rebated pricetag of $10 to $20 US for those OEM software units, but I suspect that it works out to being a bit more in hidden costs that the OEM's don't want to disclose for fear that they'll bust open their "The software is really free" mantra.
These are play numbers - the real cost is made up elsewhere. Be careful about how you break these things down.
For example, the per-license cost could be $10 - $20, but the cost for getting the media could be a once-a-year subscription price of $100,000. That's how they get around a lot of this, delayed or bulk pricing combined with rebates and bulk discounts.
Incidentally, the rebates often come from exclusionary agreements - so both the OEM and consumer are paying in loss of flexibility as well.
That's the stated price - keep in mind, most OEMs will respond that you're not paying for any of the software when you buy a PC from them - that it's "free". It's not, it's a hidden cost. Dell and the other OEMs, under further inquiry, will probably state a rebated pricetag of $10 to $20 US for those OEM software units, but I suspect that it works out to being a bit more in hidden costs that the OEM's don't want to disclose for fear that they'll bust open their "The software is really free" mantra.
These are play numbers - the real cost is made up elsewhere. Be careful about how you break these things down.
For example, the per-license cost could be $10 - $20, but the cost for getting the media could be a once-a-year subscription price of $100,000. That's how they get around a lot of this, delayed or bulk pricing combined with rebates and bulk discounts.
Incidentally, the rebates often come from exclusionary agreements - so both the OEM and consumer are paying in loss of flexibility as well.
Microsoft loves free software. They don't mind
spending 1 billion dollars to develop a piece of software and then give it away so that they can
destroy a similar product of a competitior.
arkned@hopky.com
spending 1 billion dollars to develop a piece of software and then give it away so that they can
destroy a similar product of a competitior.
arkned@hopky.com
netscape what?
free beer:)
You can't have it both ways when you denounced Gate's stance of "GPL as a cancer" as pure FUD and then condoned what Lindows (and other companies) have done. You can't dismiss "GPL is not a viable business model" as pure FUD and then condone GPL violations as "let's give Lindows a chance to succeed". If the only way to make money off the GPL license is to violate the GPL license itself, then the GPL license itself is not a viable business model.
Last month, IBM's Dr. Karl-Heinz Strassemeyer (he ported linux to S/390) was interviewed by a Scandinavian linux users group.
www.sslug.dk/patent/strassemeyer/transr-del.shtml
Dr. Strassemeyer recalled in the interview that in 1999, he had scheduled a meeting with Linus to show him a first viewing of linux on S/390. But before the meeting with Linus, the lawyers at IBM were all freaked out that such a demonstration to Linus was not vetted by the IBM lawyers.
After hundreds of IBM lawyers later, Dr. Strassemeyer was ONLY allowed to show Linus the demonstration "in an executive office, in an IBM lab, which was on IBM premises. And make sure that nobody took anything out so it wasn't a distribution."
Because the GPL lincense hasn't changed at all since 1999 and there has been no case law on the issue on the legality of GPL licensing to-date ---- the IBM legal opinion is still valid. What Lindows has done is clearly a distribution and thus must release the source code upon request.
This is the MAIN REASON why IBM does not and will never be a linux distributor --- it carries too much legal risk of contaminating their own proprietary IP. Actions speaks louder than words --- IBM knows "GPL is cancer" but it's smart enough not to say it aloud. And IBM is smart enough to spend most of that billion dollars on linux projects that aren't covered by GPL.
Last month, IBM's Dr. Karl-Heinz Strassemeyer (he ported linux to S/390) was interviewed by a Scandinavian linux users group.
www.sslug.dk/patent/strassemeyer/transr-del.shtml
Dr. Strassemeyer recalled in the interview that in 1999, he had scheduled a meeting with Linus to show him a first viewing of linux on S/390. But before the meeting with Linus, the lawyers at IBM were all freaked out that such a demonstration to Linus was not vetted by the IBM lawyers.
After hundreds of IBM lawyers later, Dr. Strassemeyer was ONLY allowed to show Linus the demonstration "in an executive office, in an IBM lab, which was on IBM premises. And make sure that nobody took anything out so it wasn't a distribution."
Because the GPL lincense hasn't changed at all since 1999 and there has been no case law on the issue on the legality of GPL licensing to-date ---- the IBM legal opinion is still valid. What Lindows has done is clearly a distribution and thus must release the source code upon request.
This is the MAIN REASON why IBM does not and will never be a linux distributor --- it carries too much legal risk of contaminating their own proprietary IP. Actions speaks louder than words --- IBM knows "GPL is cancer" but it's smart enough not to say it aloud. And IBM is smart enough to spend most of that billion dollars on linux projects that aren't covered by GPL.
"If the only way to make money off the GPL license is to violate the GPL license itself, then the GPL license itself is not a viable business model."
The GPL is a viable business model in two ways:
- For software companies. Although the returns are low, it is possible to make a profit selling GPL software. For example, Red Hat
- For non-software companies. Hardware companies(like IBM, VA, SUN) can bundle a free OS with their computers. Companies that don't sell software or hardware (like Amazon.com, who are in profit) can make use of free software and save a fortune on software licensing.
You see... the GPL is a viable business model. Just not for Microsoft!
-Toby Inkster
While IBM is a hardware company, I believe a large amount of their revenue/profit comes from services. But, yes, I do believe that well-paid programming people actually do work for IBM, Sun and lots of other companies who contribute to open source projects.
In many cases, the value isn't in the software when it's shrinkwrapped and put on a retailer's shelf - it's in what you can do with that software, and it's in the services that you can provide to people who use it.
In many cases, the value isn't in the software when it's shrinkwrapped and put on a retailer's shelf - it's in what you can do with that software, and it's in the services that you can provide to people who use it.
RedHat didn't make money last year, it lost $140 million.
IBM is careful in their opensourceness. They probably only spent less than 10% of that billion dollars on real GPL stuff. They improved their POSIX stuff on AIX (but since those improvements probably works on linux, it's included in the billion dollars.) Eclipse is probably included also. And they are the only people selling mainframes.
Sun is losing customers who switch to linux, they are not making money off hardware division, they are not making money off Java (because IBM and BEA owns that market) and they are not making money off StarOffice.
VA doesn't even sell hardware anymore.
Amazon save only $17 million by switching to linux from unix ---- that's for a company with billions of dollars in revenue. They could have cut that much money from their expense account by not flying in the LearJet. Amazon, like all the shops at your local shopping mall, only makes money in November and December ---- they will again lose money this quarter.
IBM is careful in their opensourceness. They probably only spent less than 10% of that billion dollars on real GPL stuff. They improved their POSIX stuff on AIX (but since those improvements probably works on linux, it's included in the billion dollars.) Eclipse is probably included also. And they are the only people selling mainframes.
Sun is losing customers who switch to linux, they are not making money off hardware division, they are not making money off Java (because IBM and BEA owns that market) and they are not making money off StarOffice.
VA doesn't even sell hardware anymore.
Amazon save only $17 million by switching to linux from unix ---- that's for a company with billions of dollars in revenue. They could have cut that much money from their expense account by not flying in the LearJet. Amazon, like all the shops at your local shopping mall, only makes money in November and December ---- they will again lose money this quarter.
Redhat only sells other peoples work. When Redhat took great bridges postgresql and renamed it Redhat database great bridge was out of business within a month. Thats GPL, other companies can hijack your stuff.
The GPL is NOT a viable businessmodel.
The GPL is NOT a viable businessmodel.
You are completely missing the point. The reason why Microsoft likes the BSD licensing is because there they can take others work, improve it, and NOT give it back. With the GPL you cant, you have to share, and share alike.
The GPL is not a viable businessmodel, if you consider business as we do it today. But in the future, which is a very service oriented society, the GPL makes a more viable business model, than any propriatary ones.
I dont know any specifics about the RedHat takeover on postgresql, but if they further developed it, and distributed it, others could have taken their work and put it back into the original code base. If they did not do that, or if the customers would rather want the RedHat version, then fine, let the market choose.
In the end, the society is better of with making that decision.
The GPL is not a viable businessmodel, if you consider business as we do it today. But in the future, which is a very service oriented society, the GPL makes a more viable business model, than any propriatary ones.
I dont know any specifics about the RedHat takeover on postgresql, but if they further developed it, and distributed it, others could have taken their work and put it back into the original code base. If they did not do that, or if the customers would rather want the RedHat version, then fine, let the market choose.
In the end, the society is better of with making that decision.
Even if services, GPL is not a viable model. Because somebody can undercut your consulting fees if they don't have to contribute to the source code development cost.
That would be true of almost all consulting businesses out there. I challenge you to find a consulting business that produces for-sale software.
Yes! You're close, but all still missing the point
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 25, 2002 11:17 PM
Just think of where the Internet would be today if BSD did not release the TCP/IP code
for everyone to steal and hack into their OS... It would simply not exist. Neither would
VI, the fast filesystem, Email, and untold other "defacto standards" that were released
by the CSRG. Some subjects are too touchy to standardize and you have to have someone
with the guts to say, "Hey, while you were busy arguing, we got it going. Here you go...
Put it in Solaris, put it on a Mac, and, yes, put it in Windoze, we don't care! "
GPL might possibly be a nice political statement, but handing over all rights to the FSF
is not advisable. If you read section 9 carefully (the "or any later version of the GPL"
part) you can see that all someone has to do is buy the FSF and change the license
to kill any GPL'd code he wants.
for everyone to steal and hack into their OS... It would simply not exist. Neither would
VI, the fast filesystem, Email, and untold other "defacto standards" that were released
by the CSRG. Some subjects are too touchy to standardize and you have to have someone
with the guts to say, "Hey, while you were busy arguing, we got it going. Here you go...
Put it in Solaris, put it on a Mac, and, yes, put it in Windoze, we don't care! "
GPL might possibly be a nice political statement, but handing over all rights to the FSF
is not advisable. If you read section 9 carefully (the "or any later version of the GPL"
part) you can see that all someone has to do is buy the FSF and change the license
to kill any GPL'd code he wants.
Pardon my ignorance, but why don’t organizations centered around GPL like licensed software, (like linux, openoffice or wine) alter the GPL license so as to give companies and programmers financial motivation to work and contribute to the code?
For example, the organizations can at some stage charge a small fee for the use of the software, but only to reimbursement programmers for the time they put into the code. There can be an initial priority list of those who have contributed what, and how much, and once the programmers have been paid off the software becomes free. Sure the time between working on the code and been paid could be long, since you’d have to wait in a queue, but, at least a company is reassured that the money put into development will be fully refundable.
Imagine an independent programmer been able to work on open source software, in the open source community and make a living at the same time.
neo
For example, the organizations can at some stage charge a small fee for the use of the software, but only to reimbursement programmers for the time they put into the code. There can be an initial priority list of those who have contributed what, and how much, and once the programmers have been paid off the software becomes free. Sure the time between working on the code and been paid could be long, since you’d have to wait in a queue, but, at least a company is reassured that the money put into development will be fully refundable.
Imagine an independent programmer been able to work on open source software, in the open source community and make a living at the same time.
neo
Pardon my ignorance, but why don't organizations centered around GPL like licensed software, (like linux, openoffice or wine) alter the GPL license so as to give companies and programmers financial motivation to work and contribute to the code? For example, the organizations can at some stage charge a small fee for the use of the software...
The GPL does not require you to give your software away... you can charge whatever you want to your customers, and you only have to give source to code your customers. There is no requirement to allow free downloads for anybody on the Net. What the GPL does do, however, is allow your customer to use your software and source as they choose, with the requirement that any customers of theirs must receive the source, as well, so that the software cannot be held hostage by a single company.
The whole purpose of the GPL is NOT to de-capitalize the industry. Its main purpose is to keep large companies from taking open standards and adding non-compatible proprietary "extensions" for their own purpose. It's the classic "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactic used by AT&T, MS, IBM, etc. Microsoft has made a career on this, and that's why the GPL has them frightened.
The GPL does not require you to give your software away... you can charge whatever you want to your customers, and you only have to give source to code your customers. There is no requirement to allow free downloads for anybody on the Net. What the GPL does do, however, is allow your customer to use your software and source as they choose, with the requirement that any customers of theirs must receive the source, as well, so that the software cannot be held hostage by a single company.
The whole purpose of the GPL is NOT to de-capitalize the industry. Its main purpose is to keep large companies from taking open standards and adding non-compatible proprietary "extensions" for their own purpose. It's the classic "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactic used by AT&T, MS, IBM, etc. Microsoft has made a career on this, and that's why the GPL has them frightened.
"The GPL does not require you to give your software away... you can charge whatever you want to your customers, and you only have to give source to code your customers."
In reality thats just bullshit. The problem you see is that the first customer just uploads the whole thing (binary+source) so that anyone can download it. This is what makes GPL-covered software impossible to sell.
"The whole purpose of the GPL is NOT to de-capitalize the industry. Its main purpose is to keep large companies from taking open standards and adding non-compatible proprietary "extensions" for their own purpose. It's the classic "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactic used by AT&T, MS, IBM, etc. Microsoft has made a career on this, and that's why the GPL has them frightened."
The purpose of the GPL is to advance the cause of socialism (sharing economy). The GPL has written by the free software foundation, not the open source community. The open source community is not a politial one but basically what you describe but they did not write the GPL. The free software foundation is a fully political movement that aims at removing ownership.
In reality thats just bullshit. The problem you see is that the first customer just uploads the whole thing (binary+source) so that anyone can download it. This is what makes GPL-covered software impossible to sell.
"The whole purpose of the GPL is NOT to de-capitalize the industry. Its main purpose is to keep large companies from taking open standards and adding non-compatible proprietary "extensions" for their own purpose. It's the classic "Embrace, Extend, Extinguish" tactic used by AT&T, MS, IBM, etc. Microsoft has made a career on this, and that's why the GPL has them frightened."
The purpose of the GPL is to advance the cause of socialism (sharing economy). The GPL has written by the free software foundation, not the open source community. The open source community is not a politial one but basically what you describe but they did not write the GPL. The free software foundation is a fully political movement that aims at removing ownership.
In reality thats just bulls**t. The problem you see is that the first customer just uploads the whole thing (binary+source) so that anyone can download it. This is what makes GPL-covered software impossible to sell.
First of all, watch your language in a public forum, please.
Red Hat saw this early on, so they have invested heavily in their branding, and are focusing on corporate customers. Most corporate customers would not trust their business to a $3.95 "RPM-Based Linux" from CheapBytes; they will buy directly from Red Hat. Why do you think RH defends their name and logo so vigorously? Because like bottled water and clothing, the brand name carries more value than the commodity.
Besides, the only company really hurting from all this is MS, and possibly Sun if they don't get moving away from Solaris. If you're not a MS shareholder, why should you care? It means less cost for the consumer.
First of all, watch your language in a public forum, please.
Red Hat saw this early on, so they have invested heavily in their branding, and are focusing on corporate customers. Most corporate customers would not trust their business to a $3.95 "RPM-Based Linux" from CheapBytes; they will buy directly from Red Hat. Why do you think RH defends their name and logo so vigorously? Because like bottled water and clothing, the brand name carries more value than the commodity.
Besides, the only company really hurting from all this is MS, and possibly Sun if they don't get moving away from Solaris. If you're not a MS shareholder, why should you care? It means less cost for the consumer.
Corporate customers get linux from RedHat because Al Cox works there, so they can get something fixed if there is a problem.
Corporate customers have T1 lines, they can download copies of RedHat for free from Redhat's website, if they want to. CheapBytes is for geeks who have a 56K ISP account and can't tie up the telephone lines for 30-40 hours.
Corporate customers have T1 lines, they can download copies of RedHat for free from Redhat's website, if they want to. CheapBytes is for geeks who have a 56K ISP account and can't tie up the telephone lines for 30-40 hours.
I agree that Redhat _may_ be able to make it, so far they are loosing money but they can be successful. But why are they successful? Because most of their product (yes, it's the product that sells their service) are developed by free labour. But sooner or later this very same free labour must realize that they are just that, free labour for a capital strong company.
"why should you care? It means less cost for the consumer."
It doesn't matter how companies make money, if less money is paid for it the value in these companies WILL decline. And you can't seriously mean that the same amount of money is paid for GPLs software one way or the other as commercial software.
"why should you care? It means less cost for the consumer."
It doesn't matter how companies make money, if less money is paid for it the value in these companies WILL decline. And you can't seriously mean that the same amount of money is paid for GPLs software one way or the other as commercial software.
"In reality thats just bullshit. The problem you see is that the first customer just uploads the whole thing (binary+source) so that anyone can download it. This is what makes GPL-covered software impossible to sell."
Your first point is true, but the second point is not connected to it. It is quite possible to sell copies of GPL'ed software and companies currently do that. Proprietary software and holding distribution rights to the software does not make it unsalable.
There's a gigantic warez community out there that operates relatively in the open and that hasn't stopped proprietary companies from cleaning house.
The "redistribution makes it impossible to sell" argument is a straw man argument.
"The purpose of the GPL is to advance the cause of socialism (sharing economy). The GPL has written by the free software foundation, not the open source community. The open source community is not a politial one but basically what you describe but they did not write the GPL. The free software foundation is a fully political movement that aims at removing ownership."
Actually, that's not entirely true.
The GNU GPL operates on the basis of ownership. Without ownership, the GNU GPL can't function.
Rather, it is proprietary companies that seek to remove ownership rights from the public, by licensing everything to them. In that system, there is no ownership. In the GNU GPL method - ownership rights are retained ultimately.
Don't turn this into something it's not. Comparing the GNU GPL to socialism (which is a system of government that seeks to provide base living capabilities to all people in the nation) is not an accurate comparison.
Also, while the Free Software and Open Source movement are as you represent them (Free Software political, Open Source apathetic) the communities often overlap and both communities accept each other's licenses more often than not.
Surely, there are open source licenses that are not Free Software licenses, but the Open Source community has openly accepted the GNU GPL. The very people who wrote the Open Source definition based most of that definition off of the values stated in the GNU GPL, and list it as a seminal document. To regard it as anything less is to give a revisionist version of history.
Your first point is true, but the second point is not connected to it. It is quite possible to sell copies of GPL'ed software and companies currently do that. Proprietary software and holding distribution rights to the software does not make it unsalable.
There's a gigantic warez community out there that operates relatively in the open and that hasn't stopped proprietary companies from cleaning house.
The "redistribution makes it impossible to sell" argument is a straw man argument.
"The purpose of the GPL is to advance the cause of socialism (sharing economy). The GPL has written by the free software foundation, not the open source community. The open source community is not a politial one but basically what you describe but they did not write the GPL. The free software foundation is a fully political movement that aims at removing ownership."
Actually, that's not entirely true.
The GNU GPL operates on the basis of ownership. Without ownership, the GNU GPL can't function.
Rather, it is proprietary companies that seek to remove ownership rights from the public, by licensing everything to them. In that system, there is no ownership. In the GNU GPL method - ownership rights are retained ultimately.
Don't turn this into something it's not. Comparing the GNU GPL to socialism (which is a system of government that seeks to provide base living capabilities to all people in the nation) is not an accurate comparison.
Also, while the Free Software and Open Source movement are as you represent them (Free Software political, Open Source apathetic) the communities often overlap and both communities accept each other's licenses more often than not.
Surely, there are open source licenses that are not Free Software licenses, but the Open Source community has openly accepted the GNU GPL. The very people who wrote the Open Source definition based most of that definition off of the values stated in the GNU GPL, and list it as a seminal document. To regard it as anything less is to give a revisionist version of history.
"The GNU GPL operates on the basis of ownership. Without ownership, the GNU GPL can't function.
Rather, it is proprietary companies that seek to remove ownership rights from the public, by licensing everything to them. In that system, there is no ownership. In the GNU GPL method - ownership rights are retained ultimately."
Read "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" article on "http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html". The goal of the GPL is to remove ownership, period.
"Don't turn this into something it's not. Comparing the GNU GPL to socialism (which is a system of government that seeks to provide base living capabilities to all people in the nation) is not an accurate comparison."
Socialism is the idea of getting rid of the power ownership and owners has over people. The number one goal in socialism is to remove ownership so that man can be free. Yes, thats right, socialism is also about freedom, don't beleive the propaganda that was spread during the cold war.
Capitalism and socialism is just two different ways of defining freedom and ways of life.
In a capitalist society freedom is defined as beeing able to trade with goods and services freely and let the free market set the price.
In a socialist society freedom is defined as not beeing subject to the power owners has over people buying these goods and services. It's a share economy where everything belongs to everybody.
The free software foundation most definiately aims at socialism and share economy.
"Also, while the Free Software and Open Source movement are as you represent them (Free Software political, Open Source apathetic) the communities often overlap and both communities accept each other's licenses more often than not."
Very true, but for different reasons. Why do you think Stallman is so upset by the open source movement? Thats because the open source movement just suggest a way of developing software, the free software foundation is political and don't care much about anything else.
Rather, it is proprietary companies that seek to remove ownership rights from the public, by licensing everything to them. In that system, there is no ownership. In the GNU GPL method - ownership rights are retained ultimately."
Read "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" article on "http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html". The goal of the GPL is to remove ownership, period.
"Don't turn this into something it's not. Comparing the GNU GPL to socialism (which is a system of government that seeks to provide base living capabilities to all people in the nation) is not an accurate comparison."
Socialism is the idea of getting rid of the power ownership and owners has over people. The number one goal in socialism is to remove ownership so that man can be free. Yes, thats right, socialism is also about freedom, don't beleive the propaganda that was spread during the cold war.
Capitalism and socialism is just two different ways of defining freedom and ways of life.
In a capitalist society freedom is defined as beeing able to trade with goods and services freely and let the free market set the price.
In a socialist society freedom is defined as not beeing subject to the power owners has over people buying these goods and services. It's a share economy where everything belongs to everybody.
The free software foundation most definiately aims at socialism and share economy.
"Also, while the Free Software and Open Source movement are as you represent them (Free Software political, Open Source apathetic) the communities often overlap and both communities accept each other's licenses more often than not."
Very true, but for different reasons. Why do you think Stallman is so upset by the open source movement? Thats because the open source movement just suggest a way of developing software, the free software foundation is political and don't care much about anything else.
Thanks for the clarification. I agree with you on these issues.
However, I still argue that the GNU GPL relies on base ownership principles and that the proprietary companies seek to remove ownership as well, but in the direction of exerting *THEIR* ownership privilege on others.
But, I think that that point is separate from the points you were making - possibly even complementary.
However, I still argue that the GNU GPL relies on base ownership principles and that the proprietary companies seek to remove ownership as well, but in the direction of exerting *THEIR* ownership privilege on others.
But, I think that that point is separate from the points you were making - possibly even complementary.
"Essentially, if your country standardises on Linux, then you're not going to have any IT jobs in your country, says Bill."
So? Is there something wrong with that statement? Show me one single development company who writes open source software and makes profit. Notice that Redhat and other companies that only sells other peoples work doesn't count, give me one single company that makes open source and at the same time makes profit.
So? Is there something wrong with that statement? Show me one single development company who writes open source software and makes profit. Notice that Redhat and other companies that only sells other peoples work doesn't count, give me one single company that makes open source and at the same time makes profit.
The only thing that makes Redhat even to be able to stay floating is their use of free labour.
What kind of society is that really, big moneystrong companies making use of free labour, no thanks!
What kind of society is that really, big moneystrong companies making use of free labour, no thanks!
It's volunteered free labor and that labor is spread out amongst the rest of the Free Software industry because the GNU GPL forces it to be released if Red Hat uses it. That makes their dependance on it perfectly fine from an ethical standpoint.
People aren't being forced to labor for any Free Software company - there is no problem here.
People aren't being forced to labor for any Free Software company - there is no problem here.
I am not in the USA.
I sell products based on free software and I make a living. If I wanted to I could hire people to work with me.
IBM (revenus equal to that of a small country) makes money from GPL software. They write lots of stuff that they give away for "free".
I sell products based on free software and I make a living. If I wanted to I could hire people to work with me.
IBM (revenus equal to that of a small country) makes money from GPL software. They write lots of stuff that they give away for "free".
What I'm talking about is the people WHO WRITES the softwares ability to make money, people/companies just ripping of others don't I count.
You make money on open labour (free labour), so does IBM.
IBM's development of open source software is quite marginal despite their claims that they spend 1 billion dollars on Linux. What makes this an interresting options for IBM is that they get lots of work done for free without paying a single cent for it.
IBM's development of open source software is quite marginal despite their claims that they spend 1 billion dollars on Linux. What makes this an interresting options for IBM is that they get lots of work done for free without paying a single cent for it.
It is simply a stupid statement. I think what Gates means is that, in a developing country (note: developing), installing Linux instead of Windows, means no IT firms will take off.
This vaguely makes sense if you look at it superficially (ie not at all :) ). It misses 2 major points:
- As a developing country, going for Linux instead of Windows is going to save me a gadzillion dollars worth of license. I think we all agree here? Then, there is nothing to stop a million firms building non-GPL'd applications running on Linux. Of course you won't get any firms making money out of the OS, but that brings me to the second point:
- How is installing Windows going to create any jobs in my country? I paid a gadzillion dollars for the _os_, now I have to spend another to get development tools (DevStudio is not exactly free... Oh, you didn't plan to use GCC under Windows?) and your firms can start creating new software _exactly_ in the same situation. Nobody in my country will be making money off Windows either.
Gates is using misunderstaning: "Install Linux and everything you type will have to be given away for free." Rubbish.
The point is not of knowing if you can make money with GPL, it is whether it makes sense for those countries to buy something they can get for free.
This vaguely makes sense if you look at it superficially (ie not at all :) ). It misses 2 major points:
- As a developing country, going for Linux instead of Windows is going to save me a gadzillion dollars worth of license. I think we all agree here? Then, there is nothing to stop a million firms building non-GPL'd applications running on Linux. Of course you won't get any firms making money out of the OS, but that brings me to the second point:
- How is installing Windows going to create any jobs in my country? I paid a gadzillion dollars for the _os_, now I have to spend another to get development tools (DevStudio is not exactly free... Oh, you didn't plan to use GCC under Windows?) and your firms can start creating new software _exactly_ in the same situation. Nobody in my country will be making money off Windows either.
Gates is using misunderstaning: "Install Linux and everything you type will have to be given away for free." Rubbish.
The point is not of knowing if you can make money with GPL, it is whether it makes sense for those countries to buy something they can get for free.
You didn't read the article did you?
Gates are talking about different options on how publically funded projects can be licensed. That means, how can software written by students and others who are tax-dollar funded be distributed and licensed. This is about projects that taxpayers have paid for, not anything else.
1: Ofcause there is the fully commercial alternative there a company buys a project from a university (for example), this was how many high profile silicon valley area companies was funded. These companies have given many high paying jobs and has raisen the living standard a great bit in the whole US. This also affect everyone else in the country besides developers since they buy services from other companies, buys lunches, buys cars etc etc etc. You get the idea.
2: Public domain: Many publically funded projects are released as public domain with no strings attached. This gives everyone (including companies) the options of profit from it or doing whatever they want to with it. For example, SUN build their operating system on what has BSD unix (public domain) from the start, anyone else has the same posibility. I think silicon graphics also came from BSD. This has also given many high paying jobs.
Please notice that the _original_ public domain stays that way forever, it will never revert to non-public domain. Only additional work gives profitable products.
3: GPL-software: This has not given many high paying jobs to my knowledge. Infact it has and will continue to sink the IT-sector even lower than it is today.
I'm not saying one thing or the other is better and neither did Gates, he just pointed out where high paying jobs (and therefore taxes) comes from. If you don't want high paying jobs and continue farming, thats fine.
Gates are talking about different options on how publically funded projects can be licensed. That means, how can software written by students and others who are tax-dollar funded be distributed and licensed. This is about projects that taxpayers have paid for, not anything else.
1: Ofcause there is the fully commercial alternative there a company buys a project from a university (for example), this was how many high profile silicon valley area companies was funded. These companies have given many high paying jobs and has raisen the living standard a great bit in the whole US. This also affect everyone else in the country besides developers since they buy services from other companies, buys lunches, buys cars etc etc etc. You get the idea.
2: Public domain: Many publically funded projects are released as public domain with no strings attached. This gives everyone (including companies) the options of profit from it or doing whatever they want to with it. For example, SUN build their operating system on what has BSD unix (public domain) from the start, anyone else has the same posibility. I think silicon graphics also came from BSD. This has also given many high paying jobs.
Please notice that the _original_ public domain stays that way forever, it will never revert to non-public domain. Only additional work gives profitable products.
3: GPL-software: This has not given many high paying jobs to my knowledge. Infact it has and will continue to sink the IT-sector even lower than it is today.
I'm not saying one thing or the other is better and neither did Gates, he just pointed out where high paying jobs (and therefore taxes) comes from. If you don't want high paying jobs and continue farming, thats fine.
3: GPL-software: This has not given many high paying jobs to my knowledge. Infact it has and will continue to sink the IT-sector even lower than it is today.
You are so far out in the field you could be farming. This is the problem we face with the GPL, no one actually reads it. Instead, they listen to people they think have read it.
NO WHERE in the GPL does it prevent you from extending functionality for profit. What it does prevent you from doing is taking the work or developer "X", packaging it into MySoftWare and selling it. The way to (weakly) enforce it is to make you supply the source with it. The source of developer "X" AND the interface you created for it.
Put another way, if I write a book, you cannot take the book, replace the cover with your own and sell it as "your" book. Nor can you replace chapter 13 and call it mine (or yours for that matter). Write a parody, base on characters I created, give me credit, reference my work…to a certain extent all are fair use.
So why bother with the GPL if copyrights would do? Because it is near impossible to copyright binary code. If you do not supply the source how would I know? [Historically, you could reverse engineer it and figure out that MS was using Kerberos. Now we have the DMCA which say "no. no…" if you reverse engineer something you are breaking the law.]
You are so far out in the field you could be farming. This is the problem we face with the GPL, no one actually reads it. Instead, they listen to people they think have read it.
NO WHERE in the GPL does it prevent you from extending functionality for profit. What it does prevent you from doing is taking the work or developer "X", packaging it into MySoftWare and selling it. The way to (weakly) enforce it is to make you supply the source with it. The source of developer "X" AND the interface you created for it.
Put another way, if I write a book, you cannot take the book, replace the cover with your own and sell it as "your" book. Nor can you replace chapter 13 and call it mine (or yours for that matter). Write a parody, base on characters I created, give me credit, reference my work…to a certain extent all are fair use.
So why bother with the GPL if copyrights would do? Because it is near impossible to copyright binary code. If you do not supply the source how would I know? [Historically, you could reverse engineer it and figure out that MS was using Kerberos. Now we have the DMCA which say "no. no…" if you reverse engineer something you are breaking the law.]
Ofcause I read the GPL, but I don't think you have understood what the GPL does to a software project.
Sure, you can spend $10 million dollars (medium sized project I would say) developing some kind of software. Say you sell this for $50 piece. The problem is that the first customer can (and DO it has turned out) upload the binary+source to all FTP-sites they can find, the GPL gives them every right to do this.
Not only that, Redhat and all the other distributions downloads it and include it in their distributions. Now, who the hell is going to buy is from us when everyone get it with their distributions anyway???
Take a look at great bridge who made postgresql, they tried to sell their GPLd database for a while but Redhat just downloaded it, changed it's name to Redhat database and distribute it with their distributions. NO ONE buyed postgresql from great bridge and they got out of business in a blink of an eye.
Sure, you can spend $10 million dollars (medium sized project I would say) developing some kind of software. Say you sell this for $50 piece. The problem is that the first customer can (and DO it has turned out) upload the binary+source to all FTP-sites they can find, the GPL gives them every right to do this.
Not only that, Redhat and all the other distributions downloads it and include it in their distributions. Now, who the hell is going to buy is from us when everyone get it with their distributions anyway???
Take a look at great bridge who made postgresql, they tried to sell their GPLd database for a while but Redhat just downloaded it, changed it's name to Redhat database and distribute it with their distributions. NO ONE buyed postgresql from great bridge and they got out of business in a blink of an eye.
It depends on the nature of the software. If you (as a company or individual) are obsessed in selling packaged software, then you're probably not going to make bundles of cash by GPL-ing your stuff. At least you won't unless you lean heavily towards branding, as others have pointed out.
However, if you're providing software that actually runs businesses (for example, and that can be very lucrative) then do you actually believe that your customer will upload the software and all the configuration, documents and data that lets them compete more effectively than their competitors?
In such circumstances, the software isn't that valuable - it's the expertise around the software and the things that can be done with it. In my opinion, that's where the value is with most software - it should have nothing to do with how much a software company can stiff businesses for because they once had a good idea and now the businesses are locked into the software which implements it.
However, if you're providing software that actually runs businesses (for example, and that can be very lucrative) then do you actually believe that your customer will upload the software and all the configuration, documents and data that lets them compete more effectively than their competitors?
In such circumstances, the software isn't that valuable - it's the expertise around the software and the things that can be done with it. In my opinion, that's where the value is with most software - it should have nothing to do with how much a software company can stiff businesses for because they once had a good idea and now the businesses are locked into the software which implements it.
Yet, Red Hat still happens to sell distributions. Which, under your logic, they would sell one copy and then be out of business - which is not the case. Care you change your argument?
Great Bridge had a different set of problems. They founded themselves around an existing GPLd product (postgresql) in a highly competitive market (databases). Then, they attempted to break into enterprise computing with (1) not a lot of capital, (2) no name recognition (beyond employing the core postgres developers), (3) no history of success. It looks like they had a pretty short "runway", in that there wasn't enough capital to be in it long enough to correct (2) and thus establish (3).
This doesn't mean it can't be done, it means study the market niche you're aiming at better before you do it. (Incidentally, they're hardly the only company that could have used market research before starting up...)
I did read the article. The fact it talks about "just government funded projects" doesn't change a thing (except liberal capitalists should wonder if it's the role of the governement): You can develop non-GPL, commercialisable software on top of Linux. Sure, whatever work you get your people to do on Linux won't be sellable. Now, do you know _anyone_ ouside Microsoft who sells versions of Windows they have changed? None, because they can't, Microsoft won't let anybody do that.
Your answer is full of contradictions: you didn't answer the original point (writing non-GPL apps), you say that governemnts employ highly payed IT workers (don't think so, govt workers are typically paid less than industry workers), and you say that a governemnt paying their workers more is going to get more taxes? Well, they need to pay those people more in the first place? Where is the sense?
If you want to say the govt will get more taxes, fine, but that can't be on publicly funded projects.
/Y
Your answer is full of contradictions: you didn't answer the original point (writing non-GPL apps), you say that governemnts employ highly payed IT workers (don't think so, govt workers are typically paid less than industry workers), and you say that a governemnt paying their workers more is going to get more taxes? Well, they need to pay those people more in the first place? Where is the sense?
If you want to say the govt will get more taxes, fine, but that can't be on publicly funded projects.
/Y
With article I meant the original article, sorry for missing to state that. My mistake. Here is a link to it.
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2002/0 4-17glc.asp
The cut-and-paste article posted here on newsforge is so weirdly put toghever so it gives totally the wrong impression on what was really said. Read the original and you will see what I mean.
I didn't say government employs IT workers, you misunderstood me somewhere there. I meant that publically funded projects (like software projects at universities, for example BSD unix) has given lots of high-payed jobs in the private sektor witch in turn gives lots of taxes to the government and lots of money to people who sell services and products to these people and companies. SUN is one example, silicon graphics is another and there are lots of examples. The bay area (including silicon valley is extremely rich).
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2002/0 4-17glc.asp
The cut-and-paste article posted here on newsforge is so weirdly put toghever so it gives totally the wrong impression on what was really said. Read the original and you will see what I mean.
I didn't say government employs IT workers, you misunderstood me somewhere there. I meant that publically funded projects (like software projects at universities, for example BSD unix) has given lots of high-payed jobs in the private sektor witch in turn gives lots of taxes to the government and lots of money to people who sell services and products to these people and companies. SUN is one example, silicon graphics is another and there are lots of examples. The bay area (including silicon valley is extremely rich).
One can sell software licensed under the GNU GPL. There is nothing barring that from happening.
But since price is determined by both supply and demand. And supply is perfectly unlimited (because everybody can re-distribute your wares), the price will eventually approach zero.
You think Cheapbytes can make money by selling their CD's for $5 each ---- if the walmarts and the amazon.com can come in and undercut cheapbytes.
You think Cheapbytes can make money by selling their CD's for $5 each ---- if the walmarts and the amazon.com can come in and undercut cheapbytes.
Firstly, with taxpayers' money financing many university projects, surely the most equitable way of returning the results of those projects to the taxpayer is to make them permanently accessible to the general public. As such, many open source licences qualify, since they all guarantee access to the project material as it was when the project was underway or completed.
It does seem perverse that a company could take the publicly-funded work and, even if they were to develop it further, to sell that work again to the taxpayer. One could argue that the taxpayer is actually buying the enhancements, but other issues arise: the non-transparent further development of a product, surrounded by draconian intellectual property legislation, combined with monopoly-level market exploitation, can seriously damage interoperability and undermine the benefits of the original project.
So, there is a compelling case for the GPL (or LGPL) in publicly-funded projects. I don't buy the arguments about Silicon Valley, firstly because the facts are incorrect (since when was BSD "public domain"?) and secondly because the recent .com gold rush has actually served to undermine attempts to increase economic stability in the USA and Europe (for a start), whilst causing social, environmental and economic "polarisation".
It's a weak justification for the Silicon Valley phenomenon that supposedly major benefits come from the side-effects of the lifestyle of young, rich, IT-driven fast-sports-car drivers moving to California. People can certainly make money as much as highly-paid IT people can spend it, but that doesn't help the sports car mechanic who now has to pay the inflated rent on his apartment because the high rollers have moved into town.
It does seem perverse that a company could take the publicly-funded work and, even if they were to develop it further, to sell that work again to the taxpayer. One could argue that the taxpayer is actually buying the enhancements, but other issues arise: the non-transparent further development of a product, surrounded by draconian intellectual property legislation, combined with monopoly-level market exploitation, can seriously damage interoperability and undermine the benefits of the original project.
So, there is a compelling case for the GPL (or LGPL) in publicly-funded projects. I don't buy the arguments about Silicon Valley, firstly because the facts are incorrect (since when was BSD "public domain"?) and secondly because the recent .com gold rush has actually served to undermine attempts to increase economic stability in the USA and Europe (for a start), whilst causing social, environmental and economic "polarisation".
It's a weak justification for the Silicon Valley phenomenon that supposedly major benefits come from the side-effects of the lifestyle of young, rich, IT-driven fast-sports-car drivers moving to California. People can certainly make money as much as highly-paid IT people can spend it, but that doesn't help the sports car mechanic who now has to pay the inflated rent on his apartment because the high rollers have moved into town.
Your line of questioning is flawed because public institutions (or private insitutions receiving public research grants) often required that faculty members to pay the universities a %age of the profit. UC at Berkeley probably got a cut of the BSD profits. (The original BSD scientists invented UNIX at AT&T but they left AT&T to take teaching positions at Berkeley and invented BSD at the university.) Stanford gets a cut of SUN (Stanford University Network) Microsystem. Overall, reduced financial pressure to increase tuition fees.
Patents are permanently assessable to the general public because the secret formula is clearly on the patent application form, which is a public document.
Patents are permanently assessable to the general public because the secret formula is clearly on the patent application form, which is a public document.
I just bought a copy of Photogenics for Linux. Nice little graphics editor. Commercial, not GPL. So, if Gates is right, how can that be? Obviously, Gates is wrong.
Photogenics was started by a 15 year old boy 10 years ago. Folded once already and then relaunched later. Anyone can be profitable with 2-3 employees. But that ain't a viable business model for the whole computer industry.
80 - 90% of all programming jobs in the united states exist to write customized software - not proprietary corporate software, which is the "software distributor" category that gates is referring to as the "IT industry" and that you're referring to when you refer to open source companies.
In other words, even if Free Software companies can't hold water (which I think is not at all true) that doesn't affect 80 - 90% of all programming jobs in the industry in the least.
Next, you have to account for the fact that IT positions also include systems administration, support, user assistance, network engineering and architecture, etc...
All of these jobs are only enhanced by the existance of Free Software and these jobs are not at all negatively affected if a proprietary software company can't survive.
So, even in this hypothetical system where Free Software businesses can't produce, more than 99% of all IT jobs stand unaffected. You still need support for your systems - nothing will ever change that. There is a human factor here that is being completely washed over.
Further, Red Hat is currently profitable and Cygnus was profitable and is an example of how going proprietary can actually hurt a company. You may want to look into cygnus' past.
In other words, even if Free Software companies can't hold water (which I think is not at all true) that doesn't affect 80 - 90% of all programming jobs in the industry in the least.
Next, you have to account for the fact that IT positions also include systems administration, support, user assistance, network engineering and architecture, etc...
All of these jobs are only enhanced by the existance of Free Software and these jobs are not at all negatively affected if a proprietary software company can't survive.
So, even in this hypothetical system where Free Software businesses can't produce, more than 99% of all IT jobs stand unaffected. You still need support for your systems - nothing will ever change that. There is a human factor here that is being completely washed over.
Further, Red Hat is currently profitable and Cygnus was profitable and is an example of how going proprietary can actually hurt a company. You may want to look into cygnus' past.
RedHat LOST $140 million last year.
The problem with the so-called the other 80-90% of the industry is that it's not sexy enough to attract open-source volunteers to do the work. A couple of months ago, people urged Linus to name a patch penguin, managing all the little patches that are sent to Linus everyday. Linus said it right out --- no one would want this job, it's not sexy, it's a thankless job.
So that means the company that starts the initial GPL codes would have to contribute 99% of the coding staff on a GPL project. But then another company can just re-distribute all your work.
The problem with the so-called the other 80-90% of the industry is that it's not sexy enough to attract open-source volunteers to do the work. A couple of months ago, people urged Linus to name a patch penguin, managing all the little patches that are sent to Linus everyday. Linus said it right out --- no one would want this job, it's not sexy, it's a thankless job.
So that means the company that starts the initial GPL codes would have to contribute 99% of the coding staff on a GPL project. But then another company can just re-distribute all your work.
"RedHat LOST $140 million last year."
That's irrelivent to my point. I even went so far as to take the assumption that companies producing GPL'ed software would not produce. This means that Red Hat's track does not qualify in that instance.
"The problem with the so-called the other 80-90% of the industry is that it's not sexy enough to attract open-source volunteers to do the work."
Pop quiz - most Free Software/Open Source code is written by a) company employees working in software houses that produce those works or b) volunteers and individuals who work for institutions that use Free Software to do specific functions.
I won't leave you hanging to make the wrong choice there. The answer is b.
Also, most Free Software projects are not started under the impetus of xyz corporation starting the project.
So, you see, the model already works and is already working. A certain percentage of those customized coding jobs either are on or use Free Software for their purposes. I don't have the percentage and won't guess at it. However, there is nothing about Free Software that keeps it's use from occurring in this situation and there are many features that support it's use.
Don't forget, approx. 25% of all webservers run GNU/Linux. I'm quite positive that all of those are not software houses that produce GPL'ed software.
"A couple of months ago, people urged Linus to name a patch penguin, managing all the little patches that are sent to Linus everyday. Linus said it right out --- no one would want this job, it's not sexy, it's a thankless job. "
Yet, people still wanted the job. I don't listen to Linus anymore. He has said many things over the past few monthes that bring me to the conclusion that he is not thinking entirely clearly.
I lead a Free Software project in my spare time. I know the troubles of doing it, particularly on limited time. However, I think that you're missing the bigger picture of what I'm saying. All of the arguments thus far have been about selling software developed inhouse and using that model exclusively to bring business to bare.
That is simply an unrealistic assessment. The IT industry has a very VERY small percentage of employees employed writing for-sale software products. The rest of it operates on dynamics that are very very friendly to Free Software development.
Also, sexy has nothing to do with it. If some company needs a base level product designed to get a custom job done, and that base level product can be designed for less than it costs to use a proprietary solution (which can happen with distributed development projects) then that component will be developed. Also, that company will ultimately benefit from submissions from other companies - thus cutting their initial expenditure on that product.
My point, though, is people need to stop being so unimaginative. The IT industry is not based on software sales and never has been. It's always been based on services based around software and hardware.
"So that means the company that starts the initial GPL codes would have to contribute 99% of the coding staff on a GPL project. But then another company can just re-distribute all your work."
If you have no intention of selling the software, that is not an issue.
Most of the software used out there is not special nor does it give one company any major advantage over another. Therefore, base components are easily shared.
However, I don't think that this is even entirely relevant. I do think that there is a Free Software business model that works - I don't think that it will be based on the distribution of software alone. But, those days are over. Software is a commodity now - get over it.
Also, people keep holding Red Hat up as if it's some symbol of the failure of Free Software companies. Might I remind you of where Red Hat would be right now if they were proprietary. They have roughly a 5% marketshare of all of the computers out there - and that estimate is being nice to them. If they were proprietary and relied exclusively on inhouse development, I'll give you 5 guesses where they'd be right now. I'll even supply the options:
1. Out of business
2. Out of business
3. Out of business
4. Out of business
5. Out of business
If they relied entirely on inhouse development, Red Hat wouldn't even be able to compete in a monopolized environment. The only reason they're in business at all is because of the GNU GPL.
That's irrelivent to my point. I even went so far as to take the assumption that companies producing GPL'ed software would not produce. This means that Red Hat's track does not qualify in that instance.
"The problem with the so-called the other 80-90% of the industry is that it's not sexy enough to attract open-source volunteers to do the work."
Pop quiz - most Free Software/Open Source code is written by a) company employees working in software houses that produce those works or b) volunteers and individuals who work for institutions that use Free Software to do specific functions.
I won't leave you hanging to make the wrong choice there. The answer is b.
Also, most Free Software projects are not started under the impetus of xyz corporation starting the project.
So, you see, the model already works and is already working. A certain percentage of those customized coding jobs either are on or use Free Software for their purposes. I don't have the percentage and won't guess at it. However, there is nothing about Free Software that keeps it's use from occurring in this situation and there are many features that support it's use.
Don't forget, approx. 25% of all webservers run GNU/Linux. I'm quite positive that all of those are not software houses that produce GPL'ed software.
"A couple of months ago, people urged Linus to name a patch penguin, managing all the little patches that are sent to Linus everyday. Linus said it right out --- no one would want this job, it's not sexy, it's a thankless job. "
Yet, people still wanted the job. I don't listen to Linus anymore. He has said many things over the past few monthes that bring me to the conclusion that he is not thinking entirely clearly.
I lead a Free Software project in my spare time. I know the troubles of doing it, particularly on limited time. However, I think that you're missing the bigger picture of what I'm saying. All of the arguments thus far have been about selling software developed inhouse and using that model exclusively to bring business to bare.
That is simply an unrealistic assessment. The IT industry has a very VERY small percentage of employees employed writing for-sale software products. The rest of it operates on dynamics that are very very friendly to Free Software development.
Also, sexy has nothing to do with it. If some company needs a base level product designed to get a custom job done, and that base level product can be designed for less than it costs to use a proprietary solution (which can happen with distributed development projects) then that component will be developed. Also, that company will ultimately benefit from submissions from other companies - thus cutting their initial expenditure on that product.
My point, though, is people need to stop being so unimaginative. The IT industry is not based on software sales and never has been. It's always been based on services based around software and hardware.
"So that means the company that starts the initial GPL codes would have to contribute 99% of the coding staff on a GPL project. But then another company can just re-distribute all your work."
If you have no intention of selling the software, that is not an issue.
Most of the software used out there is not special nor does it give one company any major advantage over another. Therefore, base components are easily shared.
However, I don't think that this is even entirely relevant. I do think that there is a Free Software business model that works - I don't think that it will be based on the distribution of software alone. But, those days are over. Software is a commodity now - get over it.
Also, people keep holding Red Hat up as if it's some symbol of the failure of Free Software companies. Might I remind you of where Red Hat would be right now if they were proprietary. They have roughly a 5% marketshare of all of the computers out there - and that estimate is being nice to them. If they were proprietary and relied exclusively on inhouse development, I'll give you 5 guesses where they'd be right now. I'll even supply the options:
1. Out of business
2. Out of business
3. Out of business
4. Out of business
5. Out of business
If they relied entirely on inhouse development, Red Hat wouldn't even be able to compete in a monopolized environment. The only reason they're in business at all is because of the GNU GPL.
RedHat still in business has nothing to do with the Linux operations. They are still in business because they went for a secondary public offering and took in a lot of cash. So RedHat has x% of marketshare, so what, they are still losing money.
Yes big companies contribute to infrastructure type opensource projects, like Apache. But in order to entice those big shots to contribute, they have to change to a non-GPL license. Besides Linux itself, there is not many big name open source projects that relies on GPL.
We are talking about the viability of GPL as a business model --- not the viability of Apache and Mozilla projects, because they don't use GPL license.
Yes big companies contribute to infrastructure type opensource projects, like Apache. But in order to entice those big shots to contribute, they have to change to a non-GPL license. Besides Linux itself, there is not many big name open source projects that relies on GPL.
We are talking about the viability of GPL as a business model --- not the viability of Apache and Mozilla projects, because they don't use GPL license.
"RedHat still in business has nothing to do with the Linux operations. They are still in business because they went for a secondary public offering and took in a lot of cash. So RedHat has x% of marketshare, so what, they are still losing money."
They would never even have made it to IPO without a body of GPL'ed software. That is the fact. The second IPO is a non-event in that instance.
"Yes big companies contribute to infrastructure type opensource projects, like Apache. But in order to entice those big shots to contribute, they have to change to a non-GPL license. Besides Linux itself, there is not many big name open source projects that relies on GPL."
That's not even remotely insightful.
As far as copyleft programs that organizations contribute to - let's name a few:
gcc
glibc
emacs
gnome
gtk+
kde
That's just the tip of the iceburg. Much of the GNU project gets code submissions from various different types of organizations and entities. You also have companies (like IBM) which are releasing GPL'ed and LGPL'ed programs. However, that's another issue.
But, with this - I think that we're reaching your true bias. You hate the GNU GPL - for whatever reason. You're one of these "I love BSD because I'm a popularity whore" type of people. Bah.
Adding the "big name" modifier to GPL'ed projects is an interesting loophole to use, btw.
Also, if companies are supplying modifications to Free Software/Open Source projects and aren't doing so because it's GPL'ed - that's largely due to legal ignorance in that corporation. The vast majority of those entities (99%) are not producing relicensed forks of those programs (like Apache) so using a license other than the GNU GPL is a misnomer.
Further, it's idiotic for them to demand a BSD style license if they're going to submit code because that code that that entity submitted can be used by their competition without that competition giving back to them. Those looser licenses are actually worse for submitting companies.
In short, don't use those organizations as an example - it's either unenlightening or represents the idiocy of that organization.
"We are talking about the viability of GPL as a business model"
The GNU GPL is not a business model - it's a copyright license. That's like referring to water or gravity as a business model.
Just like any other resource, it depends on how you use it. If you can't see ways to use the GNU GPL in a business model (it is not and can never be a business model, but it may be used in one) then I'd suggest that you are unimaginative. I've already given examples of what types of IT jobs could use the GNU GPL even in the presence of the GNU GPL not being appropriate for for-sale software. Those examples encompass almost 99% of the IT industry and allow for software production with the GNU GPL.
Please, invest in some shear ability to not think in a closed, one-dimensional way.
"not the viability of Apache and Mozilla projects, because they don't use GPL license."
Somebody forgot to inform you that Mozilla is now dual-licensed under an GPL/MPL disjunctive license.
They would never even have made it to IPO without a body of GPL'ed software. That is the fact. The second IPO is a non-event in that instance.
"Yes big companies contribute to infrastructure type opensource projects, like Apache. But in order to entice those big shots to contribute, they have to change to a non-GPL license. Besides Linux itself, there is not many big name open source projects that relies on GPL."
That's not even remotely insightful.
As far as copyleft programs that organizations contribute to - let's name a few:
gcc
glibc
emacs
gnome
gtk+
kde
That's just the tip of the iceburg. Much of the GNU project gets code submissions from various different types of organizations and entities. You also have companies (like IBM) which are releasing GPL'ed and LGPL'ed programs. However, that's another issue.
But, with this - I think that we're reaching your true bias. You hate the GNU GPL - for whatever reason. You're one of these "I love BSD because I'm a popularity whore" type of people. Bah.
Adding the "big name" modifier to GPL'ed projects is an interesting loophole to use, btw.
Also, if companies are supplying modifications to Free Software/Open Source projects and aren't doing so because it's GPL'ed - that's largely due to legal ignorance in that corporation. The vast majority of those entities (99%) are not producing relicensed forks of those programs (like Apache) so using a license other than the GNU GPL is a misnomer.
Further, it's idiotic for them to demand a BSD style license if they're going to submit code because that code that that entity submitted can be used by their competition without that competition giving back to them. Those looser licenses are actually worse for submitting companies.
In short, don't use those organizations as an example - it's either unenlightening or represents the idiocy of that organization.
"We are talking about the viability of GPL as a business model"
The GNU GPL is not a business model - it's a copyright license. That's like referring to water or gravity as a business model.
Just like any other resource, it depends on how you use it. If you can't see ways to use the GNU GPL in a business model (it is not and can never be a business model, but it may be used in one) then I'd suggest that you are unimaginative. I've already given examples of what types of IT jobs could use the GNU GPL even in the presence of the GNU GPL not being appropriate for for-sale software. Those examples encompass almost 99% of the IT industry and allow for software production with the GNU GPL.
Please, invest in some shear ability to not think in a closed, one-dimensional way.
"not the viability of Apache and Mozilla projects, because they don't use GPL license."
Somebody forgot to inform you that Mozilla is now dual-licensed under an GPL/MPL disjunctive license.
Troll Tech (www.trolltech.com)
Trolltech lives on their non-GPL fully commercial QT version witch you have to use to write non-GPL apps. Costs about $2 000/product you make I think, a very nice piece of software by the way.
Bill Gates clearly believes that his corporation and numerous others like it have a "right to exist" - that it is entirely justifiable that a company can make billions of dollars purely from software. The issue that few people bother to address is whether this situation is really in the interests of the public or of other non-computing businesses.
As Mr Gates and his corporate friends endlessly drag the technology sector through yet more rounds of "innovations" (and having seen telecoms giants and inflated .com ventures sink billions of dollars into dubious technology-driven business models), it's tempting to believe that "real business" is coming second to the technologists' supposed "right" to make money.
Of course, software and services need to be developed to make business (and life in general) work more efficiently, productively, effectively and so on. The big question is whether businesses and individuals can get together to serve their common technological need to develop such software and services in a distributed and open fashion.
Unlike the software-only outfits who don't care directly (or even at all) about your customers, your plans or your needs, "open source" and "open development" have the potential to produce software which is more suited to what people want - even the average non-technical person on the street.
The fear of competition from a pervasive, robust movement which arguably outperforms the software monoliths is what drives the man Gates to making his ridiculous remarks. But he knows that in time, empires like his may well be merely footnotes in business textbooks: "How did anyone ever make money from software?!"
As Mr Gates and his corporate friends endlessly drag the technology sector through yet more rounds of "innovations" (and having seen telecoms giants and inflated .com ventures sink billions of dollars into dubious technology-driven business models), it's tempting to believe that "real business" is coming second to the technologists' supposed "right" to make money.
Of course, software and services need to be developed to make business (and life in general) work more efficiently, productively, effectively and so on. The big question is whether businesses and individuals can get together to serve their common technological need to develop such software and services in a distributed and open fashion.
Unlike the software-only outfits who don't care directly (or even at all) about your customers, your plans or your needs, "open source" and "open development" have the potential to produce software which is more suited to what people want - even the average non-technical person on the street.
The fear of competition from a pervasive, robust movement which arguably outperforms the software monoliths is what drives the man Gates to making his ridiculous remarks. But he knows that in time, empires like his may well be merely footnotes in business textbooks: "How did anyone ever make money from software?!"
I can't see any hint anywhere that Bill Gates thinks he has a right to make money.
He just points out that if you (as in country) want high paying jobs you should not give your work away for free. And looking at how much money open source _developers_ make he is absolutely right. Not that it's a right but it gives high paying jobs.
He just points out that if you (as in country) want high paying jobs you should not give your work away for free. And looking at how much money open source _developers_ make he is absolutely right. Not that it's a right but it gives high paying jobs.
> I can't see any hint anywhere that Bill Gates
> thinks he has a right to make money.
I thought that this was a sarcastic remark, but perhaps you mean it seriously.
Of course it's hard to run a software (product) business based on the GPL and to rake in millions of dollars every quarter, but then by offering this as an argument, you're effectively participating in the debate on Mr Gates' terms - he'd like you to think of it in terms of "How can my software company make money?"
Significant efficiency improvements through computing in business did not in the beginning come about through big technology companies like Microsoft coming along and waving their products in front of eager-but-clueless executives - the usage of technology was largely customer-driven.
One of the issues in the bigger picture is whether the control that non-software companies have today over the technology is satisfactory and whether they get value for money. The issue which you raise is how people can fit into any system where software is produced and still make a decent living writing that software.
But the underlying question is possibly "Should there be huge numbers of people getting paid huge amounts to write software in an artificially-engineered software ecosystem where customer (eg. business, public sector, etc.) demands have an increasingly lower priority?"
In the recently-departed .com era, many people entered the IT employment scene with the intention of making piles of cash with limited skills. Were they entitled to pursue that career path? Was "society" (or industry) wise to encourage them?
> thinks he has a right to make money.
I thought that this was a sarcastic remark, but perhaps you mean it seriously.
Of course it's hard to run a software (product) business based on the GPL and to rake in millions of dollars every quarter, but then by offering this as an argument, you're effectively participating in the debate on Mr Gates' terms - he'd like you to think of it in terms of "How can my software company make money?"
Significant efficiency improvements through computing in business did not in the beginning come about through big technology companies like Microsoft coming along and waving their products in front of eager-but-clueless executives - the usage of technology was largely customer-driven.
One of the issues in the bigger picture is whether the control that non-software companies have today over the technology is satisfactory and whether they get value for money. The issue which you raise is how people can fit into any system where software is produced and still make a decent living writing that software.
But the underlying question is possibly "Should there be huge numbers of people getting paid huge amounts to write software in an artificially-engineered software ecosystem where customer (eg. business, public sector, etc.) demands have an increasingly lower priority?"
In the recently-departed .com era, many people entered the IT employment scene with the intention of making piles of cash with limited skills. Were they entitled to pursue that career path? Was "society" (or industry) wise to encourage them?
Maybe you have only read the cut-and-paste version that newsforge put toghever. Take a look at the original.
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2002/0 4-17glc.asp
Quite a difference, right :-)
The newsforge version is heavily angeled or what you want to call it. :)
Nowhere in the original does Gates try to say that they or anyone else has a right to make money, just that the companies around the bay area has been a great success with their current business-model.
"But the underlying question is possibly "Should there be huge numbers of people getting paid huge amounts to write software in an artificially-engineered software ecosystem where customer (eg. business, public sector, etc.) demands have an increasingly lower priority?""
I really don't understand what you mean with this? Microsoft is extremely customer oriented and are investing billions (yes, billions) of dollars each years just on research&development on consumer satisfaction related issues.
Microsoft is one of the most consumer oriented companies on the planet. To my knowledge, microsofts profit margin is around 30% a good year (not the last couple of years) not 98% as you seems to think. 30% is quite typical for any major company in any business.
I really can't understand how you can think that IT-related companies charges to much. Have you seen the stockvalue the last couple of years, this is NOT a effect of to high profits :-)
"artificially-engineered software ecosystem "
Are you implying that just charging for your work makes an artificially-engineered market?
The software industry isn't very different from any other "newer" market. Take a look at pharmaceutical oriented businesses, many of those has also sprung out of publically funded projects at universities, it has also been a huge succes that has given good jobs and very good medicines that we otherwise wouldn't have.
http://www.microsoft.com/billgates/speeches/2002/0 4-17glc.asp
Quite a difference, right :-)
The newsforge version is heavily angeled or what you want to call it. :)
Nowhere in the original does Gates try to say that they or anyone else has a right to make money, just that the companies around the bay area has been a great success with their current business-model.
"But the underlying question is possibly "Should there be huge numbers of people getting paid huge amounts to write software in an artificially-engineered software ecosystem where customer (eg. business, public sector, etc.) demands have an increasingly lower priority?""
I really don't understand what you mean with this? Microsoft is extremely customer oriented and are investing billions (yes, billions) of dollars each years just on research&development on consumer satisfaction related issues.
Microsoft is one of the most consumer oriented companies on the planet. To my knowledge, microsofts profit margin is around 30% a good year (not the last couple of years) not 98% as you seems to think. 30% is quite typical for any major company in any business.
I really can't understand how you can think that IT-related companies charges to much. Have you seen the stockvalue the last couple of years, this is NOT a effect of to high profits :-)
"artificially-engineered software ecosystem "
Are you implying that just charging for your work makes an artificially-engineered market?
The software industry isn't very different from any other "newer" market. Take a look at pharmaceutical oriented businesses, many of those has also sprung out of publically funded projects at universities, it has also been a huge succes that has given good jobs and very good medicines that we otherwise wouldn't have.
"Take a look at pharmaceutical oriented businesses, many of those has also sprung out of publically funded projects at universities, it has also been a huge succes that has given good jobs and very good medicines that we otherwise wouldn't have."
Interesting you should mention the pharmeceutical companies in this argument. In case you haven't noticed, Americans are driving to Canada to avoid paying up to 12 times the cost on medications in this country. The major expense for drug companies is not R&D, or recouping losses caused by countries with socialized health care, but advertising (see how many prescription drug ads run during the evening news). These companies are consistently the most profitable, in part because their exclusive patents force people to pay whatever they ask for needed drugs. Part of this business model is that the companies are constantly trotting out a parade of new drugs not always to meet actual needs, but to keep profits coming in ("ask your doctor if Claritin is right for you"). Sometimes there are unsafe products that go to market because the companies are largely expected to be self-policing (Fen-Phen, anyone?).
You're right. This is a lot like the IT market today.
Interesting you should mention the pharmeceutical companies in this argument. In case you haven't noticed, Americans are driving to Canada to avoid paying up to 12 times the cost on medications in this country. The major expense for drug companies is not R&D, or recouping losses caused by countries with socialized health care, but advertising (see how many prescription drug ads run during the evening news). These companies are consistently the most profitable, in part because their exclusive patents force people to pay whatever they ask for needed drugs. Part of this business model is that the companies are constantly trotting out a parade of new drugs not always to meet actual needs, but to keep profits coming in ("ask your doctor if Claritin is right for you"). Sometimes there are unsafe products that go to market because the companies are largely expected to be self-policing (Fen-Phen, anyone?).
You're right. This is a lot like the IT market today.
So? What does it matter what they spend money on? The free market has given us great livingstandard and good medications, now you actually have a chance if you get cancer. It was not long ago then you hadn't.
I don't know how much you have traveled in the world but let me tell you. The livingstandard in North Korea, Cuba and China is not anywhere near the US. An avarage Cuban makes about $10 a month.
I don't know how much you have traveled in the world but let me tell you. The livingstandard in North Korea, Cuba and China is not anywhere near the US. An avarage Cuban makes about $10 a month.
Who said anything about right to exist? Gates just pointed out that commercial software has given high paying jobs and increased livingstandard in the areas where it has been practiced. GPL-covered software has not.
Nor has GPL'ed software been given an actual chance to make an affect. Even if it had, context dictates that it could not be effectively studied.
Two things:
1) A Government is supposed to be in place to provide food and shelter. Whatever the hell it has evolved into doesn't include jobs thanks to R&D based on commercial software. R&D jobs are R&D jobs, regardless of what you are researching and developing. I would know, I'm am working in R&D for the government. And I work with linux. (Love Canada!)
2) This thing called linux happens to come with the source code in case you want it. You don't need to fiddle with it ever if you don't want. At least we have a choice.
1) A Government is supposed to be in place to provide food and shelter. Whatever the hell it has evolved into doesn't include jobs thanks to R&D based on commercial software. R&D jobs are R&D jobs, regardless of what you are researching and developing. I would know, I'm am working in R&D for the government. And I work with linux. (Love Canada!)
2) This thing called linux happens to come with the source code in case you want it. You don't need to fiddle with it ever if you don't want. At least we have a choice.
Does his comments surprise anybody?
Posted by: Anonymous Coward on April 23, 2002 06:11 AMCapitalism also doesn't require non-GPL business model - as much as he'd like to say it does he's either a liar or downright stupid! But we won't get into that.
#