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] gmailcom> 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

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:08:39 +0200, clipka wrote:

> 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.

Without recognising the flaws, they cannot be addressed. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 03:04:36 +0200, clipka wrote:

> What if I'm not distributing anything I fixed? What if I only distribute
> /the fix/?

You mean like distributing a patch?  Sure, since the code that's being 
patched is available, it's all the same.

> 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?

You have to make the source available to at least the people you 
distribute it to.

> 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.)

See above. :-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 18:00:16 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

They'll make up for it with the upgrades to Windows 7.  You don't think 
they're going to give all Vista customers Windows 7 for free, do you? ;-)

It's the old upgrade treadmill.

Jim

Post a reply to this message