If free software exists (this time I mean free as in free beer, but then again most free-as-in-free-speech software ends up being free-as-in-free-beer software anyway), and it does indeed exist, then equivalent software is not worth money. That is a simple market dynamic. Take Economics 101, you might just learn something. I'm going to use a really simple program as an example since complex programs like web servers and OSes are fairly easy to differentiate as products. I'm going to use the MS-DOS command format, and the Linux program mkfs.msdos as an example. mkfs.msdos is available free of charge from a number of sites on the Internet, agreed? Suppose Microsoft decided to charge a separate price for format. Could they really sell any? The market price is zero for disk formatters for the FAT filesystem, so, no, only an idiot would actually pay for format from Microsoft. That doesn't mean people won't obtain and use MS format, it just means that MS format isn't worth money, therefore people won't pay money for it. If Microsoft actually charged for Windows what Windows is worth, then illegal copying wouldn't be a problem. Let me ask you this: How much is a single copy of Microsoft Windows worth to you? I.e. How much would you pay for it? For me, the answer is zero. Windows is not worth money to me. If I still wanted to use Windows, anyway, it wouldn't be a problem for me cause I've got friends in low places. That's not my point though. The point is (again) a lot of commercial software isn't worth money to some people anymore, therefore they won't pay for it because it's overpriced.
They often coincide because legislators are supposed to make them coincide (though sometimes it's arguable whether they even do that). It's a mistake to believe that if something is legal it's right and that it's wrong otherwise.
Are you a programmer? Of course not, you're a carpenter. That's why you don't understand that making copies of software is easy as opposed to making copies of houses, which is hard. Each copy of a house has to be built individually and with great effort, and there is a certain cost for the materials as well. Oh the other hand, each copy of a piece of software (oh, and BTW, try defining "piece of software" in a manner that's consistent across all computing paradigms vs. defining "home" across all habitation paradigms) is effortless to make. That's why no one gets paid to use cp the way a carpenter gets paid to nail together wood. Oh the other hand, architects and software developers do get paid. Architects get more money than carpenters and developers get more than distributers (I use the term loosely) So why is it that it's a matter of choice? Developers can choose whether or not to give away their software and there are at least as many in my estimation that have chosen to give it away as there are who have sold it. Why some choose one way and some choose the other is an entirely different question, but the fact remains that both paths are taken on a regular basis. An architect could give away blueprints, too, and there are probably some instances of that actually happening. Come to think of it... don't strain yourself, there are plenty.
Point: No developer is forced to sell software. Therefore there is free software. Therefore software which is not free for which there is a free equivalent is overpriced.
There was a link a few weeks ago to a point by point comparison of DVD and DIVX. I see MP3 vs. SMDI as pretty much the same thing.
Neither DVD or MP3 have any "opinion" about copying policy. They're just data plain and simple and people seem to have accepted DVD. DIVX and SMDI are both designed to honor some restriction on usage that prevents things from going on that the studios and record companies can't make money on. People seem to have rejected DIVX for this reason.
It comes down to something really simple. People will not accept restrictions when a free and easy alternative is available. The new format will fail.
Also, following the March 29 story about EDS, Microsoft issued an internal market bulletin to its sales staff to eliminate what it described as "confusion" generated by the Computerworld story.
Reminds me of a bit of Orwell's work. Hmm..
compworld 29.3.99 misquote bb rectify
I don't know what the rest of y'all think, but that's what came to mind.
I think you're right about the self-confirming hypotheses that have come up recently, but knowing the problem isn't going to stop it.
I could point out, as has been done in numerous posts already, a number of logical and empirical errors in this article, but why? We already knew the article was wrong before it showed up here. I wager that even the author had an inkling that he was wrong on multiple points. Telling him so, even amongst ourselves, is exactly what he wants us to do.
What needs to happen is more yawning. These nerve-touching articles will only keep coming if they are continually gratified with a response- that's basic psychology at work. Stopping them will require a collective yawn, just like the trade press has done recently to Microsoft. Perhaps a few of us will turn to our neighbors and say, "Oh well, he'll get it right eventually" but the roaring responses need to stop now.
Very recently (this last week I believe) I had a ribbon cabling problem that just wouldn't go away. I took a closer look at the cable and drive, and it turns out the ribbon was keyed the wrong way. I had to gouge out part of the socket to plug in the miskeyed ribbon...
...I haven't had to match up the red wire with pin 1 in years!
Let's just assume that they can and will co-opt the open source name... So what? All of our work is still by definition free software, which in the public's mind can never apply to Microsoft. We here all know the "free speech not free beer" mantra, but if and when Microsoft starts to say free software on a regular basis, people will expect a major software handout. If Microsoft counters with the speech/beer thing, then they'll be forced to give up control of their position.
The open source name can go for all I care and anyway, what difference does it make whether it's MS or RMS who does it? The free software name, though is one that MS can never embrace, simply because doing so would put them in a pickle between the ambiguous meanings of the word "free".
Open source is a very new thing in the business world. I suspect that over the next few years, we'll all be able to get paying jobs writing open source. I'm not a businessman, so don't ask me semantic questions about it, but look at Red Hat as an example. You won't have to deal with clueless people (well, no more than you do now) or write documentation (no more than you do now), but your organization probably will.
They're on the same railroad, but not the same track. The GPL turns copyright law on its head by protecting code from proprietary use, whereas copyright law was actually designed to protect proprietary intrests. A PGPL should do the same for patents. It should turn patent law on its head by protecting ideas from proprietary use. The key benefit for the free software community is that rather than protecting just a specific implementation, it would be able to protect the technology as well, forcing proprietary developers not only to reimplement, but also redesign.
Not actually. The Qt license started the war, but now that the two GUIs exist and have established evangellical followings, it doesn't matter that Qt is free. People will still argue simply because there are competing platforms.
And besides, it's still a good example to use for illustrative purposes.
Precisely, but not necessarily only in GPL'd works. BSD and other licenses are free, but not GPL. By giving PGPL the same viral characteristics as GPL, well, I'll use an example.
foo is a program written by some guy, licensed with a BSD style license. foo doesn't use any patented stuff in it, doesn't infringe anything at all. Some other guy decides to use the code in a proprietary thingie, and does because he can (it's a BSD license, after all).
bar is a program that does the same thing as foo and is also BSD licensed. But since bar uses a better algorithm covered by PGPL'd patent #xxxx, bar does what foo does, only better. Some other guy wants to use code from bar in a proprietary work, and can (because it's a BSD license), but must use a different algorithm because the patented/PGPL'd algorithm cannot go into a proprietary work.
I agree that patents are far more expensive than copyrights, but then again giving away code is more expensive than selling it, too.
I understand that a patent holder can license the patent any way he/she/it chooses... The problem is that for those of us who might like to license a patent with the freedoms as GPL'd software, no such readily available license exists. Not only that, but the existence of such a license might prompt organizations like Red Hat, LinuxCare, and well, maybe even the FSF to patent stuff and release the patents under a freedom-added license.
And you've missed my point. PGPL would be a patent license. i.e. J. Random Hacker applies for and obtains patent #55555555555555, then licenses _the_patent_itself_ under PGPL. As opposed to GPL and LGPL which are software licenses (and yes, I agree, (L)GPL'd _can_ infringe patents, just not PGPL'd patents;-) ).
Compete amongst ourselves. KDE vs. Gnome for instance. Notice all the animosity one camp has for the other. OSI vs. FSF, the same. There is no need for a Goliath. David can fight David.
Well, since licenses weren't discussed, let's discuss.
I had this idea recently that I've been pondering about patents. I know they're generally evil and wreak havoc all over creation, but what if there was an "open patent" license, sort of a PGPL that prevented the patent's use in _proprietary_ works. I'm not proposing such a license, I just want to know what other people think of the idea.
DJs do the mixing. DJs do the scratching. DJs do whatever else it is they do (I know, some of my friends are DJs). The final piece of work _is_ something they've created.
Compare this to the microscope guy. He grabs an image off a SEM and calls it art.
Does he really even know what a kernel is? My call: He got some silly definition from the point-and-click weenies who run the server, which of course has been/.ed to death. I would wager they were looking at a BSOD for a couple of hours there.
Slashdot Mirror
You missed my point.
If free software exists (this time I mean free as in free beer, but then again most free-as-in-free-speech software ends up being free-as-in-free-beer software anyway), and it does indeed exist, then equivalent software is not worth money. That is a simple market dynamic. Take Economics 101, you might just learn something. I'm going to use a really simple program as an example since complex programs like web servers and OSes are fairly easy to differentiate as products. I'm going to use the MS-DOS command format, and the Linux program mkfs.msdos as an example. mkfs.msdos is available free of charge from a number of sites on the Internet, agreed? Suppose Microsoft decided to charge a separate price for format. Could they really sell any? The market price is zero for disk formatters for the FAT filesystem, so, no, only an idiot would actually pay for format from Microsoft. That doesn't mean people won't obtain and use MS format, it just means that MS format isn't worth money, therefore people won't pay money for it. If Microsoft actually charged for Windows what Windows is worth, then illegal copying wouldn't be a problem. Let me ask you this: How much is a single copy of Microsoft Windows worth to you? I.e. How much would you pay for it? For me, the answer is zero. Windows is not worth money to me. If I still wanted to use Windows, anyway, it wouldn't be a problem for me cause I've got friends in low places. That's not my point though. The point is (again) a lot of commercial software isn't worth money to some people anymore, therefore they won't pay for it because it's overpriced.
legal != right
They often coincide because legislators are supposed to make them coincide (though sometimes it's arguable whether they even do that). It's a mistake to believe that if something is legal it's right and that it's wrong otherwise.
Are you a programmer? Of course not, you're a carpenter. That's why you don't understand that making copies of software is easy as opposed to making copies of houses, which is hard. Each copy of a house has to be built individually and with great effort, and there is a certain cost for the materials as well. Oh the other hand, each copy of a piece of software (oh, and BTW, try defining "piece of software" in a manner that's consistent across all computing paradigms vs. defining "home" across all habitation paradigms) is effortless to make. That's why no one gets paid to use cp the way a carpenter gets paid to nail together wood. Oh the other hand, architects and software developers do get paid. Architects get more money than carpenters and developers get more than distributers (I use the term loosely) So why is it that it's a matter of choice? Developers can choose whether or not to give away their software and there are at least as many in my estimation that have chosen to give it away as there are who have sold it. Why some choose one way and some choose the other is an entirely different question, but the fact remains that both paths are taken on a regular basis. An architect could give away blueprints, too, and there are probably some instances of that actually happening. Come to think of it... don't strain yourself, there are plenty.
Point: No developer is forced to sell software. Therefore there is free software. Therefore software which is not free for which there is a free equivalent is overpriced.
Umm... that's right. In fact, that's exactly what it says. Read it again:
...releasing it under [SCSL], which is different then XFS, which was truly Open Sourced
In other words:
Sun's cluster stuff was SCSL'd. XFS was not. XFS is truly Open Source. The implication is that SCSL isn't.
It pays to reread and rethink. You'll spare yourself a misinterpretation now and then.
There was a link a few weeks ago to a point by point comparison of DVD and DIVX. I see MP3 vs. SMDI as pretty much the same thing.
Neither DVD or MP3 have any "opinion" about copying policy. They're just data plain and simple and people seem to have accepted DVD. DIVX and SMDI are both designed to honor some restriction on usage that prevents things from going on that the studios and record companies can't make money on. People seem to have rejected DIVX for this reason.
It comes down to something really simple. People will not accept restrictions when a free and easy alternative is available. The new format will fail.
It's written on every page /. serves.
Reminds me of a bit of Orwell's work. Hmm..
compworld 29.3.99 misquote bb rectify
I don't know what the rest of y'all think, but that's what came to mind.
I think you're right about the self-confirming hypotheses that have come up recently, but knowing the problem isn't going to stop it.
I could point out, as has been done in numerous posts already, a number of logical and empirical errors in this article, but why? We already knew the article was wrong before it showed up here. I wager that even the author had an inkling that he was wrong on multiple points. Telling him so, even amongst ourselves, is exactly what he wants us to do.
What needs to happen is more yawning. These nerve-touching articles will only keep coming if they are continually gratified with a response- that's basic psychology at work. Stopping them will require a collective yawn, just like the trade press has done recently to Microsoft. Perhaps a few of us will turn to our neighbors and say, "Oh well, he'll get it right eventually" but the roaring responses need to stop now.
Very recently (this last week I believe) I had a ribbon cabling problem that just wouldn't go away. I took a closer look at the cable and drive, and it turns out the ribbon was keyed the wrong way. I had to gouge out part of the socket to plug in the miskeyed ribbon...
...I haven't had to match up the red wire with pin 1 in years!
Let's just assume that they can and will co-opt the open source name... So what? All of our work is still by definition free software, which in the public's mind can never apply to Microsoft. We here all know the "free speech not free beer" mantra, but if and when Microsoft starts to say free software on a regular basis, people will expect a major software handout. If Microsoft counters with the speech/beer thing, then they'll be forced to give up control of their position.
The open source name can go for all I care and anyway, what difference does it make whether it's MS or RMS who does it? The free software name, though is one that MS can never embrace, simply because doing so would put them in a pickle between the ambiguous meanings of the word "free".
Open source is a very new thing in the business world. I suspect that over the next few years, we'll all be able to get paying jobs writing open source. I'm not a businessman, so don't ask me semantic questions about it, but look at Red Hat as an example. You won't have to deal with clueless people (well, no more than you do now) or write documentation (no more than you do now), but your organization probably will.
They're on the same railroad, but not the same track. The GPL turns copyright law on its head by protecting code from proprietary use, whereas copyright law was actually designed to protect proprietary intrests. A PGPL should do the same for patents. It should turn patent law on its head by protecting ideas from proprietary use. The key benefit for the free software community is that rather than protecting just a specific implementation, it would be able to protect the technology as well, forcing proprietary developers not only to reimplement, but also redesign.
Not actually. The Qt license started the war, but now that the two GUIs exist and have established evangellical followings, it doesn't matter that Qt is free. People will still argue simply because there are competing platforms.
And besides, it's still a good example to use for illustrative purposes.
Precisely, but not necessarily only in GPL'd works. BSD and other licenses are free, but not GPL. By giving PGPL the same viral characteristics as GPL, well, I'll use an example.
foo is a program written by some guy, licensed with a BSD style license. foo doesn't use any patented stuff in it, doesn't infringe anything at all. Some other guy decides to use the code in a proprietary thingie, and does because he can (it's a BSD license, after all).
bar is a program that does the same thing as foo and is also BSD licensed. But since bar uses a better algorithm covered by PGPL'd patent #xxxx, bar does what foo does, only better. Some other guy wants to use code from bar in a proprietary work, and can (because it's a BSD license), but must use a different algorithm because the patented/PGPL'd algorithm cannot go into a proprietary work.
See the difference?
I agree that patents are far more expensive than copyrights, but then again giving away code is more expensive than selling it, too.
I understand that a patent holder can license the patent any way he/she/it chooses... The problem is that for those of us who might like to license a patent with the freedoms as GPL'd software, no such readily available license exists. Not only that, but the existence of such a license might prompt organizations like Red Hat, LinuxCare, and well, maybe even the FSF to patent stuff and release the patents under a freedom-added license.
And you've missed my point. PGPL would be a patent license. i.e. J. Random Hacker applies for and obtains patent #55555555555555, then licenses _the_patent_itself_ under PGPL. As opposed to GPL and LGPL which are software licenses (and yes, I agree, (L)GPL'd _can_ infringe patents, just not PGPL'd patents ;-) ).
Compete amongst ourselves. KDE vs. Gnome for instance. Notice all the animosity one camp has for the other. OSI vs. FSF, the same. There is no need for a Goliath. David can fight David.
Well, since licenses weren't discussed, let's discuss.
I had this idea recently that I've been pondering about patents. I know they're generally evil and wreak havoc all over creation, but what if there was an "open patent" license, sort of a PGPL that prevented the patent's use in _proprietary_ works. I'm not proposing such a license, I just want to know what other people think of the idea.
I stand corrected
DJs do the mixing. DJs do the scratching. DJs do whatever else it is they do (I know, some of my friends are DJs). The final piece of work _is_ something they've created.
Compare this to the microscope guy. He grabs an image off a SEM and calls it art.
Something always struck me as odd about people who find things (i.e. they don't create it) and call it art.
just my $0.02
Does he really even know what a kernel is? My call: He got some silly definition from the point-and-click weenies who run the server, which of course has been /.ed to death. I would wager they were looking at a BSOD for a couple of hours there.
I've never owned any Intel _chip_, let alone a processor... looks like I never will ;)