I can. Indeed, I've even got an unused copy of OS X that would let me do it with a completely clear conscience and, probably, a strong case for minimising any legal worries.
I certainly can.
Not in a reliable, supported or legal fashion, you can't. Not only are large amounts of screwing around required to actually get it installed and the selection of supported hardware extremely limited, you frequently need copyright-infringing copies to do it at all. Subsequently, any usage of things like Apple's Software Update will typically render the system broken.
That wasn't my experience when XP came out. I didn't use it, but a lot of friends did. A bunch of them complained about having to talk to MS whenever they changed anything.
The vast, vast majority of users don't reinstall the OS or upgrade major components like video cards, motherboards or hard disks - especially frequently enough for on-line reactivation not to work (from memory a given serial number can be reactivated online ten times before a phone call might be required). Your friends are in a minority.
I'd consider it far more likely their copies of XP were not legitimate, or were shared out a few times and activated multiple times on different machines.
So here is the difference. In case 1, MS significantly inconveniences a probably legitimate user of it's product, [...]
Your assumption is broken due to irrational paranoia and bias. If the user has a legitimate copy, it will be reactivated (assuming it even gets deactivated in the first place - unlikely at best) in a matter of minutes.
Do you have the right to use properly purchased but not validated software?
Software "ownership" is pretty much always "licensed used" in reality. As such, your usage is subject to either the terms of the vendor's license *or* copyright law.
There never seems to be any confusion when this is applied to GPLed (or other OSS licensed) software. Why is commercial software any different ?
What happens if Microsoft deactivates your OS that was legally purchased?
You ring them up and get it reactivated. If they won't and you really *do* have a legitimate copy, you take the issue to a small claims court or sue them. Same thing you do whenever any other company doesn't deliver a service or product you have paid for.
Regarding TFA:
For some reason the author talks about contracts. EULAs are not contracts (or not binding ones, anyway).
The author talks about only "licensing" rather than "owning" Vista as if that is something unique, when pretty much _all_ "Intellectual Property" everyone "buys" is subject to exactly the same conditions. Just because you own a Vista DVD, doesn't mean you own Vista - just like just because you own a Finding Nemo DVD, doesn't mean you own Finding Nemo.
The author may well have an issue with "Intellectual Property" - personally I could easily relate to such a view - but using it as a thinly veiled excuse to Microsoft-bash is disingenuous to the point of deliberate deception.
Outside of the Microsoft-hating paranoia rife throughout Slashdot and well-represented in TFA, the reality of the situation is pretty simple:
* If you have a legitimate copy of Vista, you'll be fine. There's a slim chance you might suffer a minor inconvenience and have to bfiefly use a telephone to activate your version of Vista, but if it's legal, you'll be fine.
* Microsoft aren't going to engage in mass deactivations of legitimately licensed copies of Vista.
* Microsoft aren't going to shut down your copy of Vista just because you happen to read Slashdot or have a Linux partition.
* Microsoft aren't going to remotely lock you out of your data.
* Microsoft aren't going to remotely erase your hard disk.
There are going to be false positives when legitimate copies of Vista are shut down. No system is perfect. I fully expect the first time this happens a standard anti-Microsoft headline is going to hit Slashdot about how Microsoft destroyed someone's life because they had to spend five minutes on hold reactivating their OS when they could have been playing games. The regular Chicken Littles will be running around screaming "forced upgrade" like usually they do, and 99% of people won't care, because the actualy outcome (in EULA-esque small-print at the end of the article) will be that the person had Vista up and running again five minutes later.
Only if Microsoft don't reactivate a proven legitimate copy, however, is it actually going to be newsworthy. *Then* the paranoid Slashdotters might have a leg to stand on. I'm not going to hold my breath for that eventuality, however.
I understand your position but I think you are being naive about Microsoft's willingness to be responsive to customers. Unfortunately, the entire history of MS is that they always put their profits ahead of the customer.
It is stupidly trivial to disprove this assertion.
The whole history of Microsoft demonstrates they are *terrified* of losing customers and frequently go to significant (and counter-productive, in the long run) lengths to retain them. A prime example of this is the whole Windows 9x product line.
Everything will come with Vista installed.
It is, and always has been, trivial to buy a PC without Windows.
The simple fact is that 99% of consumers are never negatively affected by the supposed "anti-customer behaviour" of Microsoft - and of the 1% who are, those who have a legitimate gripe are well taken care of.
But what if I only had an hour to complete a project.
If you only had an hour to finish your project, but it turned out the PC you bought second-hand had been stolen, whose fault would that be when the Police came and took it away (and probably laid charges shortly thereafter) ?
The constant stream of these stories makes me wonder why anyone still uses Windows.
Because the vast, vast majority of consumers suffer no ill effects, and even those who do - assuming they have a legal and legitimate copy of the software - are not inconvenienced for any longer than it takes to verify that.
That doesn't mean that its trying to "lock you in" except that OS X is nicer than Windows, so you'll want to continue to use it. But...that's what every corporation does to differentiate it from the competition. If you have a problem with that, go live in North Korea.
Indeed. The short version is you're as "locked-in" with Apple as you are with Microsoft.
In case you were still wondering, the difference between Apple's behavior and Microsoft's is that...Microsoft locks down access to the filesystem so you can't access your files with anything. Microsoft also decides for you whether you can access your data. Apple does neither of those things*.
Your interpretation, but it's a flawed interpretation which is based on your limited definition of selling software.
No, it's my interpretation based on what "selling software" actually is - and "selling software" is not "selling support contracts" or "selling hardware" or the like.
I'll avoid responding in kind, however you did say that it cannot be done. Clearly this is not true. If you meant unlikely, that would be a different word.
Indeed it would, although "unlikely" is not a strong enough word.
The meaning of my statement is quite obvious in context. Again, only those trying to avoid the issue by constructing a counter-argument based solely on pedantic observation would misinterpret as you did.
I'm pretty sure you have a handle on what you think it means; that doesn't mean you understand the GPL. It's unlikely if you think the reality is harsh, the GPL is a reflection of the reality of copyright laws.
The GPL is far more than that.
Yet it [selling GPLed software] still happens.
That doesn't make it a viable business plan.
You also ignore the tremendous amount of GPL software used by businesses, particularly technology companies and large corporations in their network infrastructure. Indeed, all that business code is supported and wouldn't be where it was unless it was.
No, I don't. Your flawed assumption is that a significant proportion of companies are using that code _because_ it is GPLed. Ie: because of the unique aspects of the GPL.
Most companies support their business code internally. Whether or not it is GPLed is pretty much irrelevant.
That depends on which business code;
I think you need to define what you mean by "business code" here. I am working under the assumption that "business code" means code developed *by the business* to help its workflow.
I am beginning to think by "business code" you mean "software used by business", which would change the situation markedly. What _do_ you mean by "business code" ?
Smaller entities are indeed less likely, but a large number of them are unlikely to buy them even if they are not free - how much software do you suppose is pirated?
A lot, but taking away the assumption of legal behaviour changes the discussion significantly. For example, a major "benefit" you extoll for the GPL (modified code redistribution) disappears.
These are not the customers that generate revenue. The world has plenty of people who will not pay for software regardless of the license.
Stop avoiding the issue. Most people will not pay for something they can legally acquire for free. This is basic human nature.
Again, these are not generally the sort that would pay for software in the first place.
Utter rubbish. A basic tenet of human nature is that people will seek to "pay" the least possible for goods and services. Very few people are prepared to pay a given amount for something they could otherwise acquire for free, or for less. Heck, the whole idea of the free market hinges on this concept, yet you are blithely asserting it doesn't exist ?
A business model for software includes presenting a value proposition for customers, including support and training. If you take this away from your software, you're not likely to get very far.
The vast amount of profitable proprietry software that isn't based around a business model of ongoing support and training payments disagrees with you.
Quite frankly, the proportion of software that is sold on the proviso of ongoing payments for support, training, etc, is quite small (although large in $$$ terms) and targeted at a relatively tiny proportion of buyers.
It can be redistributed, this is true, but your name stays on the software.
Unfortunately a sated ego doesn't pay the bills.
If you do not provide a value proposition to your customers, they will indeed not pay you. If
RAID 5 (or mirrored RAID, if that's your favorite flavor) protects against a single hard drive dying. But if the RAID card dies, you lose everything, especially if it's a proprietary card that's hard to find (more likely on a personal server); I've tried interchanging 3ware controllers and Highpoint controllers, and they couldn't read each other.
It has everything to do with copyright. The whole point of DRM is taking the concept of copyright to its logical conclusion (ie: the "content creators" have the ultimate control over their "property"). Technology has just made that a lot easier.
My bet is on b), due to the entropy of the human soul. Once the hatred of the lock-in reaches bloom, the amount of cygwin, dual boot, live CD, and flat out migration will pick up steam.
Right. Because the obvious place to turn to for cheap, fast and easy access to music, movies and other media is the open source community...
You said that a company cannot make money from GPLed software unless they tie it to a non-GPLed product. This is false.
Yes, that was "cannot" in the colloquial sense of "well, maybe you _could_ make money off it, somehow, if you were incredibly lucky, but for all practical purposes, it's impossible".
I use just "cannot" because it's a lot quicker and easier to type, and the meaning is blatantly obvious from context to anyone not trying to be a pedantic arsehole.
I've read your writing, but it seems clear that you do not understand either the spirit or letter of the GPL. This is not surprising, the GPL is one of the most commonly misunderstood software licenses.
I'm pretty sure I've got a good handle on the spirit, definition, intent and harsh reality of the GPL.
The terms are there explicitly to guarantee access to the source code, which is a different problem. It is not incompatible with selling the software. Let's be very clear here; the GPL is an open source license first, but its provisions do not prevent the software from being sold.
Literally, no. Practically, yes.
Larger customers, with deeper pockets, do indeed care whether they have the source to a product which they wish to deploy.
Ignoring for a second the massive quantity of proprietry software used by businesses the refutes this assertion, "GPLed code" and "customer access to source" are not even remotely close to being synonymous.
Business code in particular, which is amongst the most widely developed code out there, but other software which might be useful as well.
Most "business code" isn't GPLed and, indeed, GPLing it would (rightly) be seen as sacrificing a competitive advantage.
This is no different whether the software is open source or not. You still have to sell it to your customer, and if they believe your product to be worthless then they won't buy it.
Indeed. The major difference is when *do* like it, and can (legally) get it for free, they're significantly less likely to pay for it out of generosity.
If your product is really that good, people will pay for it. Most everyone wants a say in their favorite software product's development, and in the case of open source software in particular features can definitely be purchased.
Reality intrudes at this point and reminds us that the vast majority of people will not pay for a product or service they can also get for free (or significantly cheaper).
The problem with selling GPLed software is that your first customer can quite legally resell copies at a lower price than you, and/or make copies freely available. Exactly how do you propose to run a business selling software when that can happen ?
I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about. Most software companies will gladly offer high priced service agreements to corporations that use their services, and these companies have a better chance of seeing their software used in these very lucrative environments. Many large and small software companies are more than happy to take money in exchange for support if an entity is willing to spend it. If yours is not... Well, your competition probably is.
Something I have never disputed, but is completely irrelevant to the topic of this discussion, which is SELLING SOFTWARE. Not selling software tied to support contracts, hardware, additional content or subscription services.
I am well aware you can build a successful business around selling GPLed software tied to support contracts and the like. The point I am trying to get across - and have re-stated numerous times in this discussion - is that *WITHOUT* tying the GPLed software to these additional products or services, building a business around selling it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
Game publishers gain some quick revenue from software sales while the product is still hot, but a lot of games do not in fact make money. (*
I know CPU power is a big factor in performance, but c'mon.. What about extending the rest of the motherboard? I bet things would run faster in dual/quad core mode if there were dual buses so that bottlenecks are reduced to peripherals and memory.
There's no shortage of motherboards out there with multiple IO buses.
Can you explain the precise mechanism of this Unix binary backwards compatibility you're talking about? I work with Linux every day and have since 1998. I'm pretty sure if I grabbed a version of, say, Postgresql from those days and tried to launch it now, it wouldn't work, nor would it even compile. Same with any gui desktop app or driver. I haven't worked a lot with AIX or HP-UX since the '90s, but I'd be pretty surprised if a CDE app from 10 years ago just fired up without any problems.
In all fairness, backwards-comatibility problems on unix platforms are largely contained to Linux. Most other unixes like Solaris - and even OSS unixes like FreeBSD - offer excellent legacy support.
Free Software - and also commercial UNIX to a great degree - has the highest standards of backwards compatibility - far more rigorous than anything Microsoft has come up with.
Which explains why minor kernel upgrades break most kernel modules, right ? That "highest standard" of backwards compatibility ? Why "dependency hell" causes problems "DLL Hell" could only dream of.
MS' idea of backwards compatibility is hampered by an ever changing filesystem layout where developers are encouraged to step on the OS as well as other apps.
Developers who hardcode directory paths need to be taken out behind the barn and shot, because they certainly aren't competent enough to be writing anything more complex than "Hello, World".
It does not work and never has. For MS, backwards compatibility is delusional lip service - but that is what IT managers like, after all.
For Microsoft, "backwards compatibility" means something that is actually useful, rather than a bunch of theoretical bullshit unix weenies like to boast about on Slashdot.
Apple has done very well in backwards compatablity. Not as well as Windows, but then Windows hasn't managed two archetecture changes and a complete system rewrite.
Windows has never had an architecture change (although it has been - and remains - available on multiple architectures), but it most certainly has had a "complete system rewrite" (and a much more comprehensive one than OS X at that) - Windows NT.
You need to re-read what I'm writing. Because it's clear - either deliberately or accidentally - you are misinterpreting what I'm saying.
It's another set of terms through which another entity can distribute copies of your product, presumably with a different set of restrictions.
Yes. Terms which are created *because the terms of the GPL are not appropriate to the purpose of selling software*.
You have the good will of your customers to gain.
In most cases your "customers" - ie: people who pay for your software - couldn't care less whether or not it was GPLed.
If your product is worth its salt, which not all are, you'll sell licenses in any case.
Rubbish.
Basing a business on the idea people will voluntarily give you money just because you have a good product is financial suicide.
Larger entities will definitely buy, [...]
No business is going to pay good money for a product which can be acquired for free. For starters, it's fiscally irresponsible.
[...] and a large number of them will not use anything that does not have some sort of paid support structure.
In which case we're back to having to tie GPLed software to some other product like paid support to make it financially viable. Ie: the whole freaking point of this discussion.
Microsoft makes their share from publishing MCSE training materials as well.
Indeed they do - I never suggested otherwise.
The vast bulk of their revenue, however, comes from software sales. Moving down the tree to software companies which aren't lucky enough to have the size to invest in multiple markets, and the proportion of their revenue coming from software sales is even higher.
Most game publishers make their money from selling some (but definitely not all or even most) software, the whole thing being a gamble of who will buy which typically shelf life limited product first. Those that last for a longer time without languishing on the shelf tend to be those with an additional cost, such as WoW and EQ.
Where do game companies without subscription services like WoW derive revenue from if not software sales ?
How would you propose a game company make money from a GPLed game *without tying it to some other product* ?
You said major sources of revenue, and both training and support can be major sources.
Again with the straw man.
Look, I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this...
We are talking about SELLING SOFTWARE. Not selling software tied to support contracts, training, online worlds, hardware or anything else. SOFTWARE. The business model that SOFTWARE COMPANIES rely on to make money. That companies can also make money by selling support, training, access to subscriber-only services or hardware IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. The point I am trying to get across, is that the GPL DOES NOT WORK for the business model of selling software. The only way to make GPLed software viable as a revenue stream is to tie it to some other non-GPLed product.
This is, I might add, a point you tacitly agree with, even while trying to argue against it. That's why every single counterexample you try to use relies on either a) tying the GPLed software to some other product to make it useful or b) dual licensing.
TrollTech added the GPL to their product because their customers demanded it; the QPL was there before, and no doubt some customers were already using those terms who may not wish to use the GPL.
TrollTech's customers - the people who actually pay them - aren't using the GPLed version. TrollTech GPLed QT to get a foot in the door of the Linux bandwagon - because selling software to typical Linux users, outside of a few highly specific examples, is nearly impossible due to their single-minded focus on the belief that anything no
What are you trying to define as business friendly?
That would be the ability to, you know,*make money* from selling the product. "The product", in this case, being software.
Does "business friendly" mean that businesses can take the work of others freely and use them in products without giving back the improvements they made back to the original authors? If that is you mean then no, the GPL is not business friendly as it was designed to specifically counteract that.
The GPL is not "business friendly" because selling GPLed software is, for all intents and purposes, impossible unless it is tied to some other (non-GPLed) product.
The "business" under discussion here is selling software. Not selling hardware. Not selling support contracts. Not selling programming time. Not selling some other product for which you have written software. Selling *software*.
If you're having trouble understanding this, consider the video game industry. That is an example of a business model almost totally incompatible with the GPL[0].
The use of dual licensing gives the author(s) the best of both worlds.
Not really, since they would not be able use any of the user-contributed code in their non-GPLed code base (unless the contributors are happy to sign their copyrights away with the understanding that would happen - unlikely for anyone writing GPLed code).
If you want to build upon the fruits of others, either contribute code under the same terms, or pay for a license from the original authors. Tit-for-tat. do ut des. blahblahblah
As is normal with any attempt to discuss the downsides of the GPL, we end up at the "you just want to be able to use other people's work for free" strawman (an idea I have never in this discussion even *suggested*).
[0]Games with a significant subscription-style component (eg: WoW) being a notable example. Although - surprise - only because they are tied to some other non-GPLed product.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it's just that geek guys know squat all about women.
s/geek//
Can't you install OS X on a normal PC?
I can. Indeed, I've even got an unused copy of OS X that would let me do it with a completely clear conscience and, probably, a strong case for minimising any legal worries.
I certainly can.
Not in a reliable, supported or legal fashion, you can't. Not only are large amounts of screwing around required to actually get it installed and the selection of supported hardware extremely limited, you frequently need copyright-infringing copies to do it at all. Subsequently, any usage of things like Apple's Software Update will typically render the system broken.
That wasn't my experience when XP came out. I didn't use it, but a lot of friends did. A bunch of them complained about having to talk to MS whenever they changed anything.
The vast, vast majority of users don't reinstall the OS or upgrade major components like video cards, motherboards or hard disks - especially frequently enough for on-line reactivation not to work (from memory a given serial number can be reactivated online ten times before a phone call might be required). Your friends are in a minority.
I'd consider it far more likely their copies of XP were not legitimate, or were shared out a few times and activated multiple times on different machines.
So here is the difference. In case 1, MS significantly inconveniences a probably legitimate user of it's product, [...]
Your assumption is broken due to irrational paranoia and bias. If the user has a legitimate copy, it will be reactivated (assuming it even gets deactivated in the first place - unlikely at best) in a matter of minutes.
Regarding the submitter:
Software "ownership" is pretty much always "licensed used" in reality. As such, your usage is subject to either the terms of the vendor's license *or* copyright law.
There never seems to be any confusion when this is applied to GPLed (or other OSS licensed) software. Why is commercial software any different ?
You ring them up and get it reactivated. If they won't and you really *do* have a legitimate copy, you take the issue to a small claims court or sue them. Same thing you do whenever any other company doesn't deliver a service or product you have paid for.
Regarding TFA:
For some reason the author talks about contracts. EULAs are not contracts (or not binding ones, anyway).
The author talks about only "licensing" rather than "owning" Vista as if that is something unique, when pretty much _all_ "Intellectual Property" everyone "buys" is subject to exactly the same conditions. Just because you own a Vista DVD, doesn't mean you own Vista - just like just because you own a Finding Nemo DVD, doesn't mean you own Finding Nemo.
The author may well have an issue with "Intellectual Property" - personally I could easily relate to such a view - but using it as a thinly veiled excuse to Microsoft-bash is disingenuous to the point of deliberate deception.
Outside of the Microsoft-hating paranoia rife throughout Slashdot and well-represented in TFA, the reality of the situation is pretty simple:
* If you have a legitimate copy of Vista, you'll be fine. There's a slim chance you might suffer a minor inconvenience and have to bfiefly use a telephone to activate your version of Vista, but if it's legal, you'll be fine.
* Microsoft aren't going to engage in mass deactivations of legitimately licensed copies of Vista.
* Microsoft aren't going to shut down your copy of Vista just because you happen to read Slashdot or have a Linux partition.
* Microsoft aren't going to remotely lock you out of your data.
* Microsoft aren't going to remotely erase your hard disk.
There are going to be false positives when legitimate copies of Vista are shut down. No system is perfect. I fully expect the first time this happens a standard anti-Microsoft headline is going to hit Slashdot about how Microsoft destroyed someone's life because they had to spend five minutes on hold reactivating their OS when they could have been playing games. The regular Chicken Littles will be running around screaming "forced upgrade" like usually they do, and 99% of people won't care, because the actualy outcome (in EULA-esque small-print at the end of the article) will be that the person had Vista up and running again five minutes later.
Only if Microsoft don't reactivate a proven legitimate copy, however, is it actually going to be newsworthy. *Then* the paranoid Slashdotters might have a leg to stand on. I'm not going to hold my breath for that eventuality, however.
I understand your position but I think you are being naive about Microsoft's willingness to be responsive to customers. Unfortunately, the entire history of MS is that they always put their profits ahead of the customer.
It is stupidly trivial to disprove this assertion.
The whole history of Microsoft demonstrates they are *terrified* of losing customers and frequently go to significant (and counter-productive, in the long run) lengths to retain them. A prime example of this is the whole Windows 9x product line.
Everything will come with Vista installed.
It is, and always has been, trivial to buy a PC without Windows.
The simple fact is that 99% of consumers are never negatively affected by the supposed "anti-customer behaviour" of Microsoft - and of the 1% who are, those who have a legitimate gripe are well taken care of.
But what if I only had an hour to complete a project.
If you only had an hour to finish your project, but it turned out the PC you bought second-hand had been stolen, whose fault would that be when the Police came and took it away (and probably laid charges shortly thereafter) ?
Oh, by the way...I was running on 2Ghz athlon64 with 1gb of ram, Gamer's video card and SATA hard drive and performance was abysmal.
Your computer is broken. Vista is quite usable for basic tasks on a sub-Ghz P3 with 768M of RAM and a US$30ish GeForce 5200-class card.
The constant stream of these stories makes me wonder why anyone still uses Windows.
Because the vast, vast majority of consumers suffer no ill effects, and even those who do - assuming they have a legal and legitimate copy of the software - are not inconvenienced for any longer than it takes to verify that.
That doesn't mean that its trying to "lock you in" except that OS X is nicer than Windows, so you'll want to continue to use it. But...that's what every corporation does to differentiate it from the competition. If you have a problem with that, go live in North Korea.
Indeed. The short version is you're as "locked-in" with Apple as you are with Microsoft.
In case you were still wondering, the difference between Apple's behavior and Microsoft's is that...Microsoft locks down access to the filesystem so you can't access your files with anything. Microsoft also decides for you whether you can access your data. Apple does neither of those things*.
WTF are you talking about ?
Your interpretation, but it's a flawed interpretation which is based on your limited definition of selling software.
No, it's my interpretation based on what "selling software" actually is - and "selling software" is not "selling support contracts" or "selling hardware" or the like.
I'll avoid responding in kind, however you did say that it cannot be done. Clearly this is not true. If you meant unlikely, that would be a different word.
Indeed it would, although "unlikely" is not a strong enough word.
The meaning of my statement is quite obvious in context. Again, only those trying to avoid the issue by constructing a counter-argument based solely on pedantic observation would misinterpret as you did.
I'm pretty sure you have a handle on what you think it means; that doesn't mean you understand the GPL. It's unlikely if you think the reality is harsh, the GPL is a reflection of the reality of copyright laws.
The GPL is far more than that.
Yet it [selling GPLed software] still happens.
That doesn't make it a viable business plan.
You also ignore the tremendous amount of GPL software used by businesses, particularly technology companies and large corporations in their network infrastructure. Indeed, all that business code is supported and wouldn't be where it was unless it was.
No, I don't. Your flawed assumption is that a significant proportion of companies are using that code _because_ it is GPLed. Ie: because of the unique aspects of the GPL.
Most companies support their business code internally. Whether or not it is GPLed is pretty much irrelevant.
That depends on which business code;
I think you need to define what you mean by "business code" here. I am working under the assumption that "business code" means code developed *by the business* to help its workflow.
I am beginning to think by "business code" you mean "software used by business", which would change the situation markedly. What _do_ you mean by "business code" ?
Smaller entities are indeed less likely, but a large number of them are unlikely to buy them even if they are not free - how much software do you suppose is pirated?
A lot, but taking away the assumption of legal behaviour changes the discussion significantly. For example, a major "benefit" you extoll for the GPL (modified code redistribution) disappears.
These are not the customers that generate revenue. The world has plenty of people who will not pay for software regardless of the license.
Stop avoiding the issue. Most people will not pay for something they can legally acquire for free. This is basic human nature.
Again, these are not generally the sort that would pay for software in the first place.
Utter rubbish. A basic tenet of human nature is that people will seek to "pay" the least possible for goods and services. Very few people are prepared to pay a given amount for something they could otherwise acquire for free, or for less. Heck, the whole idea of the free market hinges on this concept, yet you are blithely asserting it doesn't exist ?
A business model for software includes presenting a value proposition for customers, including support and training. If you take this away from your software, you're not likely to get very far.
The vast amount of profitable proprietry software that isn't based around a business model of ongoing support and training payments disagrees with you.
Quite frankly, the proportion of software that is sold on the proviso of ongoing payments for support, training, etc, is quite small (although large in $$$ terms) and targeted at a relatively tiny proportion of buyers.
It can be redistributed, this is true, but your name stays on the software.
Unfortunately a sated ego doesn't pay the bills.
If you do not provide a value proposition to your customers, they will indeed not pay you. If
RAID 5 (or mirrored RAID, if that's your favorite flavor) protects against a single hard drive dying. But if the RAID card dies, you lose everything, especially if it's a proprietary card that's hard to find (more likely on a personal server); I've tried interchanging 3ware controllers and Highpoint controllers, and they couldn't read each other.
This is why you use software RAID.
Corporations lobbying the government to have grossly exaggerated term lengths for copyrights, on the other hand, is another matter entirely.
Not really, it's just an issue of semantics (the length of the copyright term). It's not a fundamentally different thing at all.
This has nothing to do with copyright.
It has everything to do with copyright. The whole point of DRM is taking the concept of copyright to its logical conclusion (ie: the "content creators" have the ultimate control over their "property"). Technology has just made that a lot easier.
Negative. No extra profit. Loss of control as middleman is always required.
Bollocks.
Look, DRM is bad enough on its own, to anyone who cares. You don't need to make shit up to try and paint it in a worse light.
My concern is a very simple one -- if I wish to mix my own music on Vista, will it be DRM free, [...]
Yes (unless you choose to DRM it yourself).
[...] or will simply using that OS taint my final release?
No.
(Another example of how Microsoft's "FUD" pales into insignificance compared to the "FUD" that gets directed against them.)
My bet is on b), due to the entropy of the human soul. Once the hatred of the lock-in reaches bloom, the amount of cygwin, dual boot, live CD, and flat out migration will pick up steam.
Right. Because the obvious place to turn to for cheap, fast and easy access to music, movies and other media is the open source community...
You said that a company cannot make money from GPLed software unless they tie it to a non-GPLed product. This is false.
Yes, that was "cannot" in the colloquial sense of "well, maybe you _could_ make money off it, somehow, if you were incredibly lucky, but for all practical purposes, it's impossible".
I use just "cannot" because it's a lot quicker and easier to type, and the meaning is blatantly obvious from context to anyone not trying to be a pedantic arsehole.
I've read your writing, but it seems clear that you do not understand either the spirit or letter of the GPL. This is not surprising, the GPL is one of the most commonly misunderstood software licenses.
I'm pretty sure I've got a good handle on the spirit, definition, intent and harsh reality of the GPL.
The terms are there explicitly to guarantee access to the source code, which is a different problem. It is not incompatible with selling the software. Let's be very clear here; the GPL is an open source license first, but its provisions do not prevent the software from being sold.
Literally, no. Practically, yes.
Larger customers, with deeper pockets, do indeed care whether they have the source to a product which they wish to deploy.
Ignoring for a second the massive quantity of proprietry software used by businesses the refutes this assertion, "GPLed code" and "customer access to source" are not even remotely close to being synonymous.
Business code in particular, which is amongst the most widely developed code out there, but other software which might be useful as well.
Most "business code" isn't GPLed and, indeed, GPLing it would (rightly) be seen as sacrificing a competitive advantage.
This is no different whether the software is open source or not. You still have to sell it to your customer, and if they believe your product to be worthless then they won't buy it.
Indeed. The major difference is when *do* like it, and can (legally) get it for free, they're significantly less likely to pay for it out of generosity.
If your product is really that good, people will pay for it. Most everyone wants a say in their favorite software product's development, and in the case of open source software in particular features can definitely be purchased.
Reality intrudes at this point and reminds us that the vast majority of people will not pay for a product or service they can also get for free (or significantly cheaper).
The problem with selling GPLed software is that your first customer can quite legally resell copies at a lower price than you, and/or make copies freely available. Exactly how do you propose to run a business selling software when that can happen ?
I don't think you have any idea of what you're talking about. Most software companies will gladly offer high priced service agreements to corporations that use their services, and these companies have a better chance of seeing their software used in these very lucrative environments. Many large and small software companies are more than happy to take money in exchange for support if an entity is willing to spend it. If yours is not... Well, your competition probably is.
Something I have never disputed, but is completely irrelevant to the topic of this discussion, which is SELLING SOFTWARE. Not selling software tied to support contracts, hardware, additional content or subscription services.
I am well aware you can build a successful business around selling GPLed software tied to support contracts and the like. The point I am trying to get across - and have re-stated numerous times in this discussion - is that *WITHOUT* tying the GPLed software to these additional products or services, building a business around selling it is, for all intents and purposes, impossible.
Game publishers gain some quick revenue from software sales while the product is still hot, but a lot of games do not in fact make money. (*
I still can't do that in Windows without running into issues.
Then something is wrong with your Windows machine.
I know CPU power is a big factor in performance, but c'mon.. What about extending the rest of the motherboard? I bet things would run faster in dual/quad core mode if there were dual buses so that bottlenecks are reduced to peripherals and memory.
There's no shortage of motherboards out there with multiple IO buses.
Be prepared to pay big $$$, though.
Can you explain the precise mechanism of this Unix binary backwards compatibility you're talking about? I work with Linux every day and have since 1998. I'm pretty sure if I grabbed a version of, say, Postgresql from those days and tried to launch it now, it wouldn't work, nor would it even compile. Same with any gui desktop app or driver. I haven't worked a lot with AIX or HP-UX since the '90s, but I'd be pretty surprised if a CDE app from 10 years ago just fired up without any problems.
In all fairness, backwards-comatibility problems on unix platforms are largely contained to Linux. Most other unixes like Solaris - and even OSS unixes like FreeBSD - offer excellent legacy support.
Free Software - and also commercial UNIX to a great degree - has the highest standards of backwards compatibility - far more rigorous than anything Microsoft has come up with.
Which explains why minor kernel upgrades break most kernel modules, right ? That "highest standard" of backwards compatibility ? Why "dependency hell" causes problems "DLL Hell" could only dream of.
MS' idea of backwards compatibility is hampered by an ever changing filesystem layout where developers are encouraged to step on the OS as well as other apps.
Developers who hardcode directory paths need to be taken out behind the barn and shot, because they certainly aren't competent enough to be writing anything more complex than "Hello, World".
It does not work and never has. For MS, backwards compatibility is delusional lip service - but that is what IT managers like, after all.
For Microsoft, "backwards compatibility" means something that is actually useful, rather than a bunch of theoretical bullshit unix weenies like to boast about on Slashdot.
Apple has done very well in backwards compatablity. Not as well as Windows, but then Windows hasn't managed two archetecture changes and a complete system rewrite.
Windows has never had an architecture change (although it has been - and remains - available on multiple architectures), but it most certainly has had a "complete system rewrite" (and a much more comprehensive one than OS X at that) - Windows NT.
The dual license isn't another product.
I never said it was.
You need to re-read what I'm writing. Because it's clear - either deliberately or accidentally - you are misinterpreting what I'm saying.
It's another set of terms through which another entity can distribute copies of your product, presumably with a different set of restrictions.
Yes. Terms which are created *because the terms of the GPL are not appropriate to the purpose of selling software*.
You have the good will of your customers to gain.
In most cases your "customers" - ie: people who pay for your software - couldn't care less whether or not it was GPLed.
If your product is worth its salt, which not all are, you'll sell licenses in any case.
Rubbish.
Basing a business on the idea people will voluntarily give you money just because you have a good product is financial suicide.
Larger entities will definitely buy, [...]
No business is going to pay good money for a product which can be acquired for free. For starters, it's fiscally irresponsible.
[...] and a large number of them will not use anything that does not have some sort of paid support structure.
In which case we're back to having to tie GPLed software to some other product like paid support to make it financially viable. Ie: the whole freaking point of this discussion.
Microsoft makes their share from publishing MCSE training materials as well.
Indeed they do - I never suggested otherwise.
The vast bulk of their revenue, however, comes from software sales. Moving down the tree to software companies which aren't lucky enough to have the size to invest in multiple markets, and the proportion of their revenue coming from software sales is even higher.
Most game publishers make their money from selling some (but definitely not all or even most) software, the whole thing being a gamble of who will buy which typically shelf life limited product first. Those that last for a longer time without languishing on the shelf tend to be those with an additional cost, such as WoW and EQ.
Where do game companies without subscription services like WoW derive revenue from if not software sales ?
How would you propose a game company make money from a GPLed game *without tying it to some other product* ?
You said major sources of revenue, and both training and support can be major sources.
Again with the straw man.
Look, I'm not sure how much simpler I can make this...
We are talking about SELLING SOFTWARE. Not selling software tied to support contracts, training, online worlds, hardware or anything else. SOFTWARE. The business model that SOFTWARE COMPANIES rely on to make money. That companies can also make money by selling support, training, access to subscriber-only services or hardware IS COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY IRRELEVANT TO THIS DISCUSSION. The point I am trying to get across, is that the GPL DOES NOT WORK for the business model of selling software. The only way to make GPLed software viable as a revenue stream is to tie it to some other non-GPLed product.
This is, I might add, a point you tacitly agree with, even while trying to argue against it. That's why every single counterexample you try to use relies on either a) tying the GPLed software to some other product to make it useful or b) dual licensing.
TrollTech added the GPL to their product because their customers demanded it; the QPL was there before, and no doubt some customers were already using those terms who may not wish to use the GPL.
TrollTech's customers - the people who actually pay them - aren't using the GPLed version. TrollTech GPLed QT to get a foot in the door of the Linux bandwagon - because selling software to typical Linux users, outside of a few highly specific examples, is nearly impossible due to their single-minded focus on the belief that anything no
What are you trying to define as business friendly?
That would be the ability to, you know,*make money* from selling the product. "The product", in this case, being software.
Does "business friendly" mean that businesses can take the work of others freely and use them in products without giving back the improvements they made back to the original authors? If that is you mean then no, the GPL is not business friendly as it was designed to specifically counteract that.
The GPL is not "business friendly" because selling GPLed software is, for all intents and purposes, impossible unless it is tied to some other (non-GPLed) product.
The "business" under discussion here is selling software. Not selling hardware. Not selling support contracts. Not selling programming time. Not selling some other product for which you have written software. Selling *software*.
If you're having trouble understanding this, consider the video game industry. That is an example of a business model almost totally incompatible with the GPL[0].
The use of dual licensing gives the author(s) the best of both worlds.
Not really, since they would not be able use any of the user-contributed code in their non-GPLed code base (unless the contributors are happy to sign their copyrights away with the understanding that would happen - unlikely for anyone writing GPLed code).
If you want to build upon the fruits of others, either contribute code under the same terms, or pay for a license from the original authors. Tit-for-tat. do ut des. blahblahblah
As is normal with any attempt to discuss the downsides of the GPL, we end up at the "you just want to be able to use other people's work for free" strawman (an idea I have never in this discussion even *suggested*).
[0]Games with a significant subscription-style component (eg: WoW) being a notable example. Although - surprise - only because they are tied to some other non-GPLed product.