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