Date: Sat, 21 Apr 2001 00:25:22 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: mwm@mired.org (Mike Meyer) Cc: tlambert@primenet.com (Terry Lambert), trevor@jpj.net (Trevor Johnson), freebsd-chat@FreeBSD.ORG Subject: Re: Stallman now claims authorship of Linux Message-ID: <200104210025.RAA14856@usr07.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <15071.63200.662238.163174@guru.mired.org> from "Mike Meyer" at Apr 20, 2001 03:44:16 AM
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > > > You clearly do not understand that some businesses can switch > > > > from a "service" to a "product" business model. > > > You can say that after I pointed out that there were alternative > > > business models? > > Yes. I can categorically state that your proposed revenue > > models require input proportional to the revenue they > > generate, whereas proprietary software models have revenue > > which is based on market valuation, not on effort input, > > and that the difference between those two values is the > > amount of money you can show as profit for shareholders, > > as well as applying to R&D costs. > > That adjective "effort" hides a multitude of sins. All the models have > a gross profit based on market valuation. In the proprietary software > model, the effort input is part of the fixed costs, not the per-unit > costs. GPL'd software has the restriction that the per-unit price > can't be raised to arbitrary multiples of the per-unit cost, which > makes it resemble most other products. I don't understand your use of the word "sin" here. Patent and copyright protection also permits the per-unit price to be raised to arbitrary multiples of the per-unit cost. I think the thing you are apparently refusing to factor in is that the labor itself is not based on the per-unit *value*. What this means is that a J.D. Salinger may have only 6 good Novels in him to be written in his lifetime. The money he makes must therefore be 1/6th of the money he requires as his total lifetime income, in order to encourage him to write them. Society would be a poorer place without his efforts. The cost is irrelevent: there is a fixed supply of the product. > > > If you start a research project aimed at modifying a GPL'ed > > > program, the "product" model clearly isn't available. > > You are confusing "R" with "D". The model is vailable, but is > > contingent on a business plan. Business plans can change. > > > > Since the model is, as you say, unavailable, clearly, GPL'ed > > code is not desirable to use when starting a business where > > you don't want to be locked into a single revenue model or > > exit strategy. > > I can't argue that there are times when GPL'ed code isn't desirable. Thank you. > > > Again - what kind of idiot would invest 3 years without a > > > plan to pay for it? > > A researcher, who has only the materials available at hand, > > including open source software, from which to build upon to > > do his research. > > In that case, the correct person to blame if it turns out they can't > pay for the result is themselves. This assumes that the person paying for the research is the researcher making the decision on the code base. The researcher makes a decision based on information available at the time the decision must be made. It is _completely unreasonable_ to expect a researcher to know all the details of the business operation, in the same way that it is _completely unreasonable_ to expect a business person to know all the details of the research operation. You are totally ignoring the concept of seperation of roles. A single person simply _can not_ know everything. > > As far as running the program, the question is whether, when the > > program is run on the web server on behalf of a user, whether it > > is you running the program, or whether it is the user running the > > program using your equipment. > > I'd be interested to know why those two are different cases. Because in one case, I effectively give you the program and say "here, run this"; in the other, I keep the program and say "here, let me run this for you so that you may interact with it". > > I think you need to read some of RMS' recent writing on the > > subject of Application Service Providers, since it's clear that > > such an arrangement would be against the spirit of the GPL. > > If you want to argue my interpretation, take it up with IBM's > > legal department, since it is the lawyers, not me, who arrived > > at this interpretation. > > It's clear from RMSs statements that he wants the GPL to cover > ASPs. That he wants it to is a pretty good indication that it > doesn't. If I were IBMs lawyers and knew that he wanted that, I'd > recommend against a business plan that depended on it not covering > that case as well, as that minimizes the risk of being shown to be > wrong. The problem with that is the "or later version" clause in the license. RMS can come out with a version 3.0 of the license which changes the terms out from under you. > > Fine. If you could point me toward the GNU equivalent of Microsoft > > Office, I'd be happy to use it. It should be able to read and > > write all Microsoft file formats, since my staff must communicate > > with real world customers in order for me to make money. > > If you've been that badly infected by the microsoft virus, feel free > to extend the OpenOffice.org software until it meets your > requirements. > > Personally, I have better uses for my time. So do I. So I weigh the costs of extending OpenOffice (really, writing the thing, since it's so inferior to the Microsoft equivalents), and I find that it costs me significantly less to just buy the Microsoft software instead. It has nothing to do with "the microsoft virus", as you call it: it has to do with business not operating in a vacuum. The vast majority of the business software space is Microsoft. If software doesn't interoperate, then it's just wasted space on the hard drive. > > > > 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. > > > First, this means the GPL has the same effect as commercial software. > > No. I can own a commercial software company, even if it's just > > me and some guy named "Bob". Microsoft is not the only commercial > > software company. > > You can own a GPL software company even if it's just you and some guy > named Bob. I don't see a difference. I don't own anything. Or if I do own something, it's not a software company. A software company is a company which sells software. If I have to give away my source code for free any time someone asks for it, I may be a consultant or some other form of wage-slave, and I may own a flunky employment agency, or I might own a software _distribution_ company, but I sure as heck am not the owner of a software company. > > > Since many of them do manage to retire as a result of the rewards > > > of their efforts, I'd say your final conclusion is false. > > "Many" != "vast majority". > > Right - not everyone working under those conditions manage to retire > etc. Most startups fail, so their owners don't get to retire that way > either. Your conclusion is still false. How so? My conclusion was that there was an exception to your conclusion, and therefore your conclusion was false. How is it that your conclusion is still right, even after I have demonstrated a case where it isn't? > > Let us say "retire at a monetary standard of living equal to or > > in excess of the working standard of living". > > > > That dumps out all the people with union pensions who you care to > > point to, etc.. > > No, it doesn't, it just restricts it to the ones who've done the > financial prepwork so they can retire under those conditions. That > restriction eliminates anyone who's trying to live on a union pension, > but it certainly doesn't eliminate anyone with a union pension. OK: A union pension is not a sufficient condition for retirement; do you like that formulation better? 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?200104210025.RAA14856>