 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 11:10:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Perhaps, though I might debate "consult" - sometimes consulting is
>> brought in not because of ease-of-use issues but because of manpower
>> issues.
>
> That and expertise, yes.
Yup.
>>>>> Indeed, that's the usual answer to "well, how do programmers make a
>>>>> living if all software is free?"
>>>> Consulting, custom programming, etc.
>>> I.e., not via software, but via services. That's my point.
>>
>> The same holds true for non-OSS in that case, so I'm not sure what your
>> point is....?
>
> Sorry? I can charge for non-OSS software, is what I mean. I can sell it
> twice and make twice as much money as selling it once. I.e., I don't
> have to do work every single time I make some money, so I can afford to
> make something that no one single person would pay for.
I can charge for OSS software as well. I can sell it twice and make
twice as much money selling it once.
There is in fact OSS software that's dual licensed to support just that -
though it doesn't have to be dual licensed. MySQL is available in a GPL
version and a non-GPL version.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Isn't that true of a lot of commercial software these days including
another operating system
that's a pane. ;)
David
Darren New wrote:
> Commercial distributions of Linux? That doesn't count. The more broken
> it is, the more money they make.
>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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.
> 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?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
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
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
nemesis <nam### [at] gmail com> wrote:
> Darren New escreveu:
> > When a project, no matter how well known, is still at 0.xxx after six
> > years, it's probably because it really does actually still suck to the
> > point where you don't want to try to use it in a professional setting.
>
> FOSS version numbers usually grow at snail pace. Emacs is still at 23.1
> ever since the Paleolithic. The Linux kernel is still 2.6!!
It's hardly relevant to bring it up here, but this is already off-topic, so
what's the harm?
I'm a huge fan of the TeX numbering system. It's currently at version
3.1415926. According to the Wikipedia page,
"TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final change (to be
made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at which
point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."
Seems a change bumping it up to pi violates the whole idea, but I love the idea
of convergence on an ideal rather than never-ending expansion.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
David H. Burns wrote:
> Isn't that true of a lot of commercial software these days including
> another operating system
> that's a pane. ;)
No. They make money whether it's broken or not.
Indeed, if you look at Vista, they obviously made much less money because of
how broken it was.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
Understanding the structure of the universe
via religion is like understanding the
structure of computers via Tron.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> 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.
What if I'm not distributing anything I fixed? What if I only distribute
/the fix/?
What if all I do is sit at a terminal on that company's premises,
hacking at the keyboard to remove some code from the original source and
add some other instead?
Technically, if it does constitute any distribution of code at all, then
I'd say what I distribute is purely my own work, containing no part of
the stuff I'm patching.
(Note that I'm not talking about what the company then does with that
code; I'm assuming for now that they're using the software in-house.)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> 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.
I do confess that I'm exaggerating a good deal here, and not mentioning
the closed-source software side.
But I think given the hype of GPL, it's worth pointing out flaws in the
FSF's oh-so-glorious "we promote free open source software and still
allow anyone to make money from it, thus bettering the world" point of view.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
triple_r schrieb:
> "TeX developer Donald Knuth has stated that the 'absolutely final change (to be
> made after my death)' will be to change the version number to pi, at which
> point all remaining bugs will become permanent features."
>
> Seems a change bumping it up to pi violates the whole idea, but I love the idea
> of convergence on an ideal rather than never-ending expansion.
That's why he presumably chose pi: Try to actually bump up the version
number to that...
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
clipka <ano### [at] anonymousorg> wrote:
> That's why he presumably chose pi: Try to actually bump up the version
> number to that...
I guess the last change is just all the leftover. Like the pi mile run (aka 5k)
that has two finish lines: a lower and an upper bound.
- Ricky
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
