|
![](/i/fill.gif) |
On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 01:20:21 +0200, clipka wrote:
> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> Or support it, or consult on it, or train on it....there is a whole
>> services model around software that's more than just charging to fix
>> it.
>
> They're all based on the user being unable to deal with the software
> efficiently all by himself though - obviously.
>
> You want to make money out of a GPL'd product? Then it /must not/ be
> user-friendly, intuitive and bug-free.
I disagree. Given that I work for a company that does work to make (for
example) the Linux desktop user-friendly, intuitive, and bug-free, it's
fair to say that I do know a little bit about what I'm talking about.
At the same time, I do agree to an extent, but that's not the exclusive
area of GPL'ed software. You make more money out of a software product
by keeping people on the "upgrade treadmill", and the way you do that is
by not fixing bugs in the current version, but fixing them in the future
version and requiring a paid upgrade. Microsoft are the masters of
this....
>> Besides, under the GPL, if you fix it and distribute the fix, you have
>> to distribute the code freely as well, so you can't really charge to
>> fix it, even.
>
> But you can fix it on behalf of someone else. If you're hacking the code
> right into some company's copy of the source code, you're not
> distributing the code, are you?
Technically, I believe you are, if you're fixing it "on behalf of someone
else", then you are required on the GPL to distribute that fix with your
fixed code. Now, if you submit the patch upstream and it's rejected,
that doesn't mean you can't use the patch any more. But your code
becomes a derivative work and as such has to be provided to anyone you
provide the binary to.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
![](/i/fill.gif) |