Ian Schmidt <ischmidt(a)cfl.rr.com> wrote:
On Wednesday 13 February 2002 01:28 pm, Brett Glass wrote:
business. So, if the company was profitable at all, it was just squeaking through. (And $20M in annual revenues after ten years of existence is no one's idea of "good money" for a company that size.) Sure, but they did stay in business for 10 years and were in no reported danger of going out of it. Not bad by any metric for a license you can't make money off of ;-)
but I wouldn't use the word 'thrive' to describe a company that is barely profitable (which is what the original poster used). It's not my opinion (and probably not even Brent's) that it is *impossible* to eek out a living. I think the point is that it is DIFFICULT to do so. I don't mind hearing GPL advocates say that it is more socially desirable, equitable... (not that I necessarily agree with it, but it is a valid point of view). But I don't see any evidence that it is helpful to commerical entities (which is some of the reasoning behind a license switch).
Anyway to steer back toward my point, can you name any pure-BSD/X11 players that are profitable?
well, depends on what you mean by "pure". X.org presumably is. Usually, the business model for this is a common group that publishes a reference port for other vendors, which can build propriatary value adds on top of the reference port. Ximian's 'mono' model is based on this logic (I think). A better way of looking at it is companies that have 'free' licenses that are NOT *GPL. sendmail.org has a modified license and they seem to be doing ok. Apache would a another one.
See, I think there's a more basic problem, which is that no known business model works really well for source-available software when the software is targeted at technically savvy users. Things like the Aladdin license are a nice compromise, but ultimately won't lead to Microsoft levels of profitability.
No one here is advocating for M$ levels of profitability (at least, not for wine :) ), but the point is correct. The problem is the *GPL highly limits what models can be tried.
The solution as I see it is for GPL/BSD/whatever programmers to actually cough up something non-technical users not only would use, but would *prefer*. *Then* support and selling binaries becomes a worthwhile proposition.
you cannot sell *gpl binaries. You can sell the media, but not the content. Think sun has a good idea with dual licensing and having assignment of the copyright. This allows them to change the license so that they can make a productized version.
Codeweavers is leaning in this direction with CrossOver - even though you could probably duplicate their work eventually with the current Wine CVS, the installer and overall ease of use make it well worth paying for if you value your time at all (I bought it and I love it, if you can't tell).
Isn't the whole reason this discussion was opened up again was because they want to release LGPLed code (the inference was that they thought that their code released under X11/BSD would harm them materially). The obvious extrapolation is that a more complete wine under X11/BSD is not in codeweaver's interest, regardless of where the code came from.
To put this back on topic, I don't see any immediate benefits from a LGPL license. If we knew what the threat to Wine Jeremy hinted at was, it might make for a more informed discussion. I also liked Gav's idea about WineCorp a lot as a compromise, and I'd love to see more dicussion of that and less licensing flaming.
MORE?! AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!! :) -r
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 03:42:07PM -0500, Roger Fujii wrote:
The solution as I see it is for GPL/BSD/whatever programmers to actually cough up something non-technical users not only would use, but would *prefer*. *Then* support and selling binaries becomes a worthwhile proposition.
you cannot sell *gpl binaries. You can sell the media, but not the content. Think sun has a good idea with dual licensing and having assignment of the copyright. This allows them to change the license so that they can make a productized version.
Since this is not the first time this mistruth show up in the discussion here, I think a clarification is warranted. The second paragraph of section 1 of the GPL (v.2) states: You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee. The only limits that the GPL places on sales is that once someone has received a copy of binaries from you, you can't sell them the SOURCE at an additional cost that's higher than your distribution cost. Up to that point, you can charge people whatever you want to for access to GPLed *content*. You just don't have any power to make sure that others don't sell that same content at a price lower than yours, or even give it away. And although the LGPL is a different license (which is important to keep in mind when talking about '*gpl'), the same permission is granted by the LGPL to charge a fee (an arbitrary fee) for copies of the software. Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
On Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:00, Steve Langasek wrote:
On Wed, Feb 13, 2002 at 03:42:07PM -0500, Roger Fujii wrote:
The solution as I see it is for GPL/BSD/whatever programmers to actually cough up something non-technical users not only would use, but would *prefer*. *Then* support and selling binaries becomes a worthwhile proposition.
you cannot sell *gpl binaries. You can sell the media, but not the content. Think sun has a good idea with dual licensing and having assignment of the copyright. This allows them to change the license so that they can make a productized version.
Since this is not the first time this mistruth show up in the discussion here, I think a clarification is warranted.
The second paragraph of section 1 of the GPL (v.2) states:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
This means you may charge someone to transfer the code from you either via network, CD, floppy, etc at whatever price they are willing to pay. Remember that the code is "Free" and as such has no true owner to sell it.
The only limits that the GPL places on sales is that once someone has received a copy of binaries from you, you can't sell them the SOURCE at an additional cost that's higher than your distribution cost. Up to that point, you can charge people whatever you want to for access to GPLed *content*. You just don't have any power to make sure that others don't sell that same content at a price lower than yours, or even give it away.
In other words, you can only sell "access to GPLed *content*". This is the same as saying you cannot sell the binaries (and included source) but can charge for the media (access). Sean -------------- scf(a)farley.org
At 02:00 PM 2/13/2002, Steve Langasek wrote:
you cannot sell *gpl binaries. You can sell the media, but not the content. Think sun has a good idea with dual licensing and having assignment of the copyright. This allows them to change the license so that they can make a productized version.
Since this is not the first time this mistruth show up in the discussion here, I think a clarification is warranted.
The second paragraph of section 1 of the GPL (v.2) states:
You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.
That's EXACTLY what I am saying. You can charge for a PHYSICAL COPY, or for the service of making one, but may not license the code for money. The next paragraph, which you conveniently omit, specifically says this:
b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
--Brett Glass
On Wed, 2002-02-13 at 15:42, Roger Fujii wrote:
but I wouldn't use the word 'thrive' to describe a company that is barely profitable (which is what the original poster used). It's not my opinion (and probably not even Brent's) that it is *impossible* to eek out a living. I think the point is that it is DIFFICULT to do so. I don't mind hearing GPL advocates say that it is more socially desirable, equitable... (not that I necessarily agree with it, but it is a valid point of view). But I don't see any evidence that it is helpful to commerical entities (which is some of the reasoning behind a license switch).
Currently, there are only a few software companies making huge amounts of money. It's not *just* Free Software-based software companies. Cygnus had problems making money; so is Borland. Red Hat isn't terribly profitable yet; Be Corp. went belly-up. Fact is, it's hard for a start-up to make money at all in the current software industry. It's not the licensing model that is the problem; it's the industry itself. Yes, it's easier to make money when you induce artificial scarcity in a product. But as Word Perfect Corp, Ashton-Tate, Paperback Software, iCat Corp, Banyan, NeXT, and Digital Research will tell you, it ain't easy making money in the software world, no matter what. - Tony
At 05:33 PM 2/13/2002, Anthony Taylor wrote:
Currently, there are only a few software companies making huge amounts of money. It's not *just* Free Software-based software companies. Cygnus had problems making money; so is Borland.
Ironically, Borland is having trouble because it made the mistake of targeting the Linux platform. Many Linux users have "moral" objections to paying for a product, and so either have not bought Kylix or have pirated it. At the February 2000 LinuxWorld, Bradley Kuhn of the FSF disparaged Borland's products in front of a large audience. He told the group that Borland's products are "a proprietary threat to freedom," and urged developers in the audience to write a GPLed clone and not to buy Borland's tools.
Red Hat isn't terribly profitable yet;
It has lost millions over its lifetime. I do not believe it will make it in the end.
Be Corp. went belly-up.
Interestingly, Be failed because it was squeezed between Microsoft on the one hand and Linux on the other. Microsoft damaged Be by precluding pre-installs, but Linux did even more damage by undercutting BeOS on price.
Fact is, it's hard for a start-up to make money at all in the current software industry. It's not the licensing model that is the problem; it's the industry itself.
Licensing models matter a great deal.
Yes, it's easier to make money when you induce artificial scarcity in a product.
Insisting that you be paid before giving someone your work is not "inducing artificial scarcity" any more than my refusal to do, say, unpaid plumbing work is doing so. It's simply necessary to earn a living! ;-) --Brett
On Thu, 2002-02-14 at 13:29, Brett Glass wrote:
At 05:33 PM 2/13/2002, Anthony Taylor wrote:
Currently, there are only a few software companies making huge amounts of money. It's not *just* Free Software-based software companies. Cygnus had problems making money; so is Borland.
Ironically, Borland is having trouble because it made the mistake of targeting the Linux platform. Many Linux users have "moral" objections to paying for a product, and so either have not bought Kylix or have pirated it. At the February 2000 LinuxWorld, Bradley Kuhn of the FSF disparaged Borland's products in front of a large audience. He told the group that Borland's products are "a proprietary threat to freedom," and urged developers in the audience to write a GPLed clone and not to buy Borland's tools.
Borland was in trouble well before it ported its products to Linux. Now you're just rationalizing. Their port to Linux was an attempt to move into a potentially-unexploited development platform. And attributing Be's downfall to Linux is absurd; they addressed completely different OS spaces. Be targetted multimedia production, an area Linux in which Linux is not strong. Plus, Be had been around long before Linux became well-known. Also, you haven't addressed any of the failed software companies that had nothing to do with Linux, or GPLd code.
Yes, it's easier to make money when you induce artificial scarcity in a product.
Insisting that you be paid before giving someone your work is not "inducing artificial scarcity" any more than my refusal to do, say, unpaid plumbing work is doing so. It's simply necessary to earn a living! ;-)
Plumbing is done on a case-by-case basis. You are paid for the work you do when you do it; this is hardly "artificial scarcity." The same can happen in programming. I do that; I am paid as I do my work. I make good money. Others do the same thing. I do not feel cheated at all. The artificial scarcity comes when a proprietary software company released binary-only programs, charging an exorbitant sum for the privelege of using their software. If the software is buggy, there is no recall, there are rarely patches that fix any but the most serious bugs/security holes, and there is no chance to fix the software yourself. You cannot give the software to someone you know. Fine: this is copyright law, and is the perogotive of the publisher. Most coding is not done in a proprietary software house. Most is done internally, in banks and pizza parlors and museums and government labs. Most coders get paid for writing code that will never be sold. (It does, however, have intrinsic value to the company.) If these coders choose to code on the side, it is their perogotive to determine how their code is used. For my code, I place the same restrictions on proprietary software houses that they would place on me. This is the bronze rule: "Do unto others as they would do unto you." I'm damned spiteful, so that is what I do. Plus, it's my code, I can do whatever I please with it, for the *exact same* reason proprietary software houses can restrict their code however they wish. There's a certain symmetry here. Most programmers who get paid to produce proprietary software do not get rich off their work. The successful software companies do. I am paid about the same as most programmers working for Microsoft. I don't produce as much code(my duties are primarily database related, not code related). *I am not getting cheated by writing GPL code.* I am not cheating anyone else by writing GPLd code. - Tony PS: Sorry, I know I signed out of this discussion. I apologize for getting sucked back in; but my emotions are running hot over this issue.
participants (5)
-
Anthony Taylor -
Brett Glass -
Roger Fujii -
Sean Farley -
Steve Langasek