David Kastrup wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > > Because we cannot force people to make all their source code > > available, it is done by having a license that says you can use the > > free program components in your program provided that you also make > > that entire program free & GPL not just those parts, therefore > > increasing the amount of free code. I think I see it a little > > better: the belief is people have some sort of intrinsic right to > > modify software and see how it works, etc. like how one has such a > > right to modify and see how their car works. Therefore, the > > agreement that is made when one uses GPL code in their work is to > > grant the users the same right that said programmer enjoyed, which > > helped them with their work, therefore ensuring the users that > > "intrinsic right". Right? > > Yes, this is pretty much the idea: people working with programs should > get the source code much like at some time the schematics of a car or > appliance, so that in the case of necessity, they or themselves can > change, adapt and fix it. There was a time when electronic appliances > were required to come with schematics, and there were general > electronic repair shops that could work from there. > > When software development happened mostly in academics, this was > pretty much the state of affairs there, too. And then it broke down, > partly because at some point of time the price of producing hardware > dropped below that of software. > > The problem with that is that it blocks progress: nobody is able to > stand on the shoulders of giants anymore. The wheel keeps getting > reinvented, and that is a terrible waste of labor. Programmers should > work on improving things, not recreating them, or the software world > stagnates. > > But the laws allow stagnation and keeping the users unable to have > their programs serviced instead of having to throw them away when they > are just missing the final yard. > > It is basically a distasteful state for humanity. > > The GPL creates its own software pool where the wheel does not need to > get reinvented and where progress is made, and mostly permanent. > > Now corporations are _required_ by law to work for the benefit of > their shareholders, not the public, and the benefit is primarily > defined as cash. If it is legal to withhold information, and if > short- and midterm profits can be assured over the competition, they > _have_ to withhold the information. > > So entirely voluntary arrangements of freeing software sources works > about as good as voluntary emission reductions. Namely not at all. > > The GPL pool creates a playing ground where the quality of software > makes it profitable to join the play, and where it is not legal to > withhold information. Not for a corporation, but also not for its > competition. So it is a level playing ground again. > > Profiting from it entices contributing to it, and contributing to it > does not mean getting exploited by your competition. > > Yes, it makes it harder to turn programming into money, but one can > also make use of a lot of existing software. > > -- > David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
But one can still make a decent amount of money? (notice to me, "decent" does *not* mean "Bill Gates" super-wealth) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
