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

Jim Henderson wrote:
> 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? ;-)

Of course. It's also incorrect to imply that W7 is merely bugfixes on Vista. 
But I was saying that MS doesn't make money when stuff is broken. They've 
had several notable failures, including Vista. People just didn't upgrade to 
Vista like one might expect.

> It's the old upgrade treadmill.

You don't have to upgrade if you don't need to.

-- 
   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

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 19:05:38 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> 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?
>> ;-)
> 
> Of course. It's also incorrect to imply that W7 is merely bugfixes on
> Vista. But I was saying that MS doesn't make money when stuff is broken.
> They've had several notable failures, including Vista. People just
> didn't upgrade to Vista like one might expect.

I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make 
money getting people to upgrade.  Is it as much as if they'd done a good 
job with Vista?  Probably not.  But they'll make it worth *their* while.

>> It's the old upgrade treadmill.
> 
> You don't have to upgrade if you don't need to.

Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you want 
to run the newest software (games in particular) or have particular bugs 
fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

triple_r wrote:
> 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."

awesome!  The man is a legend! ^_^

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson schrieb:
>> 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.

So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it 
stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that 
company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail 
to see the problem.

And after all, it's not much of a difference to a regular employee of 
that company adapting the GPL'ed code to the company's needs.

Post a reply to this message

On Wed, 26 Aug 2009 04:25:40 +0200, clipka wrote:

> Jim Henderson schrieb:
>>> 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.
> 
> So as all I do is just modify the GPL'ed code and not distribute it (it
> stays on their machines all the times, right?), just providing that
> company with some additional (non-GPL'ed) code of my own design, I fail
> to see the problem.

Your code, by definition, is required to be under the GPL because it is 
incorporated in a GPL'ed program.  That doesn't mean you have to 
distribute it publicly, but you do legally (by the GPL license) have to 
provide the company with the code.

> And after all, it's not much of a difference to a regular employee of
> that company adapting the GPL'ed code to the company's needs.

Well, it is a little different, in that the employee doing the work is 
generally going to be required to turn ownership over to their employer.  
As a contractor, though, you'd be required by the GPL to do the same.

But if you were to be doing that as a matter of practice, you should 
consult with a laywer who specializes specifically in the GPL.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Henderson wrote:
> I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make 
> money getting people to upgrade. 

Well, sure.  I think I've lost track of why we're discussing it. :-)

> Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you want 
> to run the newest software (games in particular) or have particular bugs 
> fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.

Yup. But if you're happy with the system as is, you don't need to upgrade. 
You're only on an upgrade treadmill if you want a different product.


-- 
   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

On Tue, 25 Aug 2009 21:11:42 -0700, Darren New wrote:

> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> I'm not implying that W7 is just bugfixes, but they are going to make
>> money getting people to upgrade.
> 
> Well, sure.  I think I've lost track of why we're discussing it. :-)

Same here. :-)

>> Except, of course, that the nature of the beast is such that if you
>> want to run the newest software (games in particular) or have
>> particular bugs fixed, an upgrade is ultimately going to be required.
> 
> Yup. But if you're happy with the system as is, you don't need to
> upgrade. You're only on an upgrade treadmill if you want a different
> product.

For which Microsoft will be happy to provide you with many, many reasons 
- ultimately pushing the existing product out of support.  (To MS' 
credit, they don't do this very quickly and it seems to be set early in 
the cycle).

Want DX10 on XP?  They laugh at you (from what I recall, though some 
enterprising individual figured out a workaround IIRC).

Jim

Post a reply to this message