Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 19 Apr 2001 18:45:38 +0000 (GMT)
From:      Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com>
To:        mwm@mired.org (Mike Meyer)
Cc:        trevor@jpj.net (Trevor Johnson), tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), brett@lariat.org (Brett Glass), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG
Subject:   Re: Stallman now claims authorship of Linux
Message-ID:  <200104191845.LAA17455@usr09.primenet.com>
In-Reply-To: <15070.54826.847491.916792@guru.mired.org> from "Mike Meyer" at Apr 19, 2001 07:12:26 AM

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > Are you saying that hiring someone to make changes to a GPL'd program
> > > would violate this second provision?
> >
> > No.  He's saying that the intellectual property involved in a 40
> > line change that results from 3 years of research should be able
> > to result in sufficient revenue to pay for that research.
> 
> What kind of idiot would invest 3 years in research without some kind
> of plan as to how to pay for the research?

You clearly do not understand that some businesses can switch
from a "service" to a "product" business model.

In a "service" business model, you own the cable TV box, and
rent it to the user, so no transfer of ownership takes place.
In this model, you can use GPL'ed code in your product, but
not have to put up with user demands for source code.

In a "product" model, you sell the cable TV box, and thus the
user owns the box, and a transfer of ownership takes place.
In this model, you can _NOT_ use GPL'ed code in your product,
since a user may demand source code, and therefore obtain your
hard-won R&D results.


> The implication that the GPL prevents you from creating revenue from a
> change is false; it only closes out one class of revenue streams, the
> ones that require restricting distribution of the modified
> program.

Correct.  That was rather the point.  It closes out revenue
streams which require amoritzation of intellectual efforts over
a product lifecycle for their success.


> Other methods exist, including but not limited to selling the
> results of running the program (A),

This is my set top box metaphor.

> selling the ability to run the program (B),

Technically, this constitutes a limited transfer of ownership;
under the GPL, I can demand the source code, so long as I have
a paid subscription.


> or simply saving staff time (C).

My employee can demand the source code, and since no additional
restrictions are permitted, their non-disclosure agreement with
my company is not binding on them.

This isn't really obvious, because the GPL glosses over the
difference between the words "use" and "utilize".  They imply
"use", but what they really mean is "utilize".  It is a hidden
trap in the semantics of the license.

You also missed:

D) Being a paid support flunky for the software.

E) Being a wage-slave for improvements to the software.

F) Being paid a small amount for the initial developement
   as a work for hire for the benefit of the GPL, such
   that your wages need to be arbitrarily low, since your
   wages can not be amortized.

The GPL thus promotes amateurs in place of trained engineers,
unless you are willing to work until you die, and never be
able to retire as a result of rewards for your efforts.


					Terry Lambert
					terry@lambert.org
---
Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present
or previous employers.

To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org
with "unsubscribe freebsd-chat" in the body of the message




Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?200104191845.LAA17455>