I don't know whether I am just blowing hot air, because I am not sure where the bottlenecks where in the test, but it seems to me that if you are going to use expensive RDRAM for the Intel, you should be using inexpensive DDR RAM for the AMD. Also, I wonder why they chose 256MB of RAM, instead of, say, 512MB? I could definitely understand why you wouldn't want to spend too much on the RDRAM, but what about for the AMD? On a cost basis, 512MB of DDRAM is a lot more affordable. Lastly, why aren't any of these guys using the latest 1.4GHz AMD chips? Is there some type of problem with these chips?
Yeah, that is exactly what I have come to believe about the mindset of the typical OSS developer. I doubt if, even outside the OSS community, many people work only for money - fame seems to be quite an inducement in itself. All the same, these same people use their fame to then make money selling their "famous" skills. I think that they probably need to pay their bills also.
As a matter of curiosity, any take on the "community" attitude towards licenses such as QPL or the BitKeeper license? Is there any sympathy for a license that is free for the general user, but costs money for those who want to commercialize it (QPL) or use it in some proprietary fashion (BitKeeper)?
Also, regarding the comment about projects such as Mozilla being the wave of the future (at least in the OSS community), are we to assume that therefore only projects that actually lose out in the proprietary world would then try to live on in the OSS world? It sounds like all should jump onto an established project, and not devote too much of their time to it (they need to pay the bills after all).
Lastly, hoping to recoup your investment on a software application or platform does not mean that you are thinking of becoming the next Bill Gates! I think that all agree that all of us would do our best to ensure that this type of strangle hold never appears again! I wonder what some of the OSS luminaries think should be the business models of companies thinking to compete in this arena? I wonder how many real success stories are out there? Is it only Red Hat which has managed to make some money in this field? If there are others, are any of them pushing a GPL product, or do they have some other type of license?
Everyone knows that OSS is a great boon to users, and that is indeed why a lot of us use it. I have multiple paid-for copies of Linux, so that I in turn support the OSS community.
The question, as the original poster stated however, is how can a small business that is developing software hope to make a living, if the only thing that it has is given away for nothing. Surely there must be some payback for a company that has spent a couple of years developing something innovative. I don't think that the standard answer of consulting contracts would make it, however. It is EXACTLY the bigger players that are riding the wave of the OSS community. That is why the like of IBM are such eager supporters. If you had the highest rated services business in the world, wouldn't you be pushing for a model that is only services oriented? It is a surprise it took IBM as long to make its move (or maybe it was just preparing in the background).
The question for smaller players is how do you recoup your investment if you give away your assets? Are pure-GPL proponents saying that one should only work part-time on these projects and make a living elsewhere? Or are they saying that we should be on the payroll of IBM, or HP, or even Red Hat? How is this individual full-time type of innovation, with its associated costs and sacrifices, going to be rewarded? Clearly, some new paradigms need to be developed that are more inclusionary than "GPL or nothing".
You say that this idea has been thought of before. Are you talking about the possibility of sharing in the rewards? If so, I was really thinking of seeing what other people thought would be a good metric for people's contributions. That is probably the most difficult thing to quantify, but some people may have actually taken a shot at it. I don't have an answer to these, but I am sure that if there is enough of a discussion about it, something may come of it. There may be a bunch of solutions that different groups may follow, and depending on the eventual outcome, one (or more) would presumably turn out to be adequate. I know that beyond just metrics, there is also a large legal angle to this whole issue. I would imagine that it would help to talk about it, however.
One other thing, just because this issue has been thought of before, doesn't mean it is no longer an issue. In fact, as more people start thinking about pursuing an OSS path, this issue would presumably become more pressing. Even a metric as stupid as number of lines of code contributed is a beginning. Ignoring the issue will not make it go away. I wish that the slashdot powers to be would start a real discussion in this regard and see what the community has to say. I am hoping not all are as dumbfounded as I am by this.
Lastly, if you know of a forum better suited to address this issue, then I would be glad to pursue matters there.
Let me first start by saying that I am part of a small company developing what has so far been a proprietary java-based platform. For a while now, we have been considering pursuing the OSS route. We have been studying the various OSS licenses available, and have been following much of the discussion that takes place in this regard. It took me a long while to make the transition from an observer of these discussions to someone who wanted to actually partake in one. I have been trawling the net looking for at least someone to have made comments similar to what I have been feeling, but so far I have not been successful. I therefore decided to make a few points that I believe have been overlooked in this whole discussion. In talking to others, I have come to believe that many of my views in this regard represent those of the silent majority - people who just want to get some work done and are not interested in the politics.
I know it's not only me, but it really seems as if everyone is really lost in this whole argument of whether BSD is better or GPL. As so many people have posted, it really depends on what your goals are. If you want to ensure the highest adoption rate, then arguably BSD is the way to go (less restrictions, probably means more adoption). If you want to make sure that all derivative works remain in the public domain (so to speak) then GPL is the way to go. But there is another aspect to all this that utterly amazes me. How is it that all these developers who are for GPL for the reason that derivative works remain GPL don't see where things seem to be heading (or maybe they don't care)?
The argument is often made that all code should be GPL and that money should be made solely on the basis of service and consulting contracts. It is no surprise to me that the likes of IBM and HP would prefer to release their code under GPL. They are in the best position to ensure that they reap the benefits of any improvement to their code. What are the chances that Joe Hacker could compete with the likes of IBM in providing a service contract to the community at large? None.
So what does the GPL actually mean for the average small company that is trying to develop "revolutionary" software? It means that in order to get other small players to cooperate with you, you risk the attention of the likes of IBM and HP. If you are developing a great application that you would love to share with the developing community, then GPL also means that you share it with IBM. In essence, these GPL advocates are inadvertently (I hope) cheering for the IBMs of the world. I am surprised that it took IBM so long to realize how much of a good thing this was and embrace the GPL whole-heartedly.
My question to the GPL backers (and by this I mean people who believe that if something is not GPL, then it is inherently bad) is why they are willing to give up their own competitive advantage (presumably, developing innovative products) and make everyone fight the service battle with the likes of IBM? Red Hat has made it (so far) because they managed to fly under the radars of these corporate giants. And the jury is still out regarding the long term viability of these new OSS companies. But the giants have been awoken, and they will not be caught off-guard (at least not for as long) next time. How do you suggest a small company compete with these giants? Is it your intention that only the big services companies be allowed to sustain a viable business model?
I doubt that this is the intention of any of the proponents of GPL in the developer community. This is the resulting outcome, however. So, I believe that more work needs to go into developing a new license. If you believe that all code should be available to the masses for no charge, then that is your prerogative - the same way that some people sincerely believe that communism is the correct economic model. Just remember that even in that model, it was the apparatchiks that tricked the masses to work for peanuts, while they were feasting in the dachas on the Black Sea.
For those of us who believe that there must be a way to make decent money from an idea that we implement, the GPL seems to take away all our assets and advantages compared to the behemoths. I understand the general apprehension that many feel about contributing to a project that they feel would result in financial rewards for the originator, but not for the developer. The GPL solution that is being provided, however, merely shifts the gains to some other entity. It is saying that if I can't figure out a way to capitalize on this work, they neither should you. I think that this is inherently the wrong approach. What needs to be discussed and developed is a new class of license that allows the rewards to somehow be shared amongst the developing community. I would like to hear more discussion from people who have thought about how to best share the fruits of one's labor. Any ideas?
As an aside, I believe that George Bernard Shaw said something to the effect of "Any man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool, and any man who is still a communist at the age of thirty is an even bigger fool." I think that much of the talk that is centered around GPL has to do with the fact that much of (specially, the vocal part) the developer community falls into this age bracket. They are idealistic, and they have found a true revolutionary in RMS. How else could one explain the war of words that goes on between the GPL and BSD camps. They seem like individuals that started a revolution together, but are now squabbling over the next step. You probably need zealots to get the word out, but I believe that it is the pragmatists that would eventually make believers of the world at large.
As a last point, I think that a lot (OK, some) of us remember the days when IBM was the only game in town and gouged customers. We have at least read of their tactics with FUD to make sure that better hardware never made it. They made all kinds of false promises to make sure people would not buy the competition's machines. IBM finally lost the game because of the PC, and sees in the GPL a way to make up for its losses. It doesn't hurt that most of the people writing here have grown up in an age when the "real" bad guy is MS. MS is not doing anything IBM wouldn't have done. Monopolies try to protect their monopolies. Now, if some people hate MS so much as to contend that we need to be promoting these other companies, then that is a flawed argument. I think that OSS has a real chance to level the playing field and make the little guys stand up and be counted. What this means is that we need a way to be able to pool our resources and share the rewards. I don't think that it should mean that we should pool our resources to line the pockets of others. IBM should play its hand the way it sees fit, as so should MS. That doesn't mean that for everyone else the option is either being a lackey of one camp or the other.
Let me first start by saying that I am part of a small company developing what has so far been a proprietary java-based platform. For a while now, we have been considering pursuing the OSS route. We have been studying the various OSS licenses available, and have been following much of the discussion that takes place in this regard. It took me a long while to make the transition from an observer of these discussions to someone who wanted to actually partake in one. I have been trawling the net looking for at least someone to have made comments similar to what I have been feeling, but so far I have not been successful. I therefore decided to make a few points that I believe have been overlooked in this whole discussion. In talking to others, I have come to believe that many of my views in this regard represent those of the silent majority - people who just want to get some work done and are not interested in the politics.
I know it's not only me, but it really seems as if everyone is really lost in this whole argument of whether BSD is better or GPL. As so many people have posted, it really depends on what your goals are. If you want to ensure the highest adoption rate, then arguably BSD is the way to go (less restrictions, probably means more adoption). If you want to make sure that all derivative works remain in the public domain (so to speak) then GPL is the way to go. But there is another aspect to all this that utterly amazes me. How is it that all these developers who are for GPL for the reason that derivative works remain GPL don't see where things seem to be heading (or maybe they don't care)?
The argument is often made that all code should be GPL and that money should be made solely on the basis of service and consulting contracts. It is no surprise to me that the likes of IBM and HP would prefer to release their code under GPL. They are in the best position to ensure that they reap the benefits of any improvement to their code. What are the chances that Joe Hacker could compete with the likes of IBM in providing a service contract to the community at large? None.
So what does the GPL actually mean for the average small company that is trying to develop "revolutionary" software? It means that in order to get other small players to cooperate with you, you risk the attention of the likes of IBM and HP. If you are developing a great application that you would love to share with the developing community, then GPL also means that you share it with IBM. In essence, these GPL advocates are inadvertently (I hope) cheering for the IBMs of the world. I am surprised that it took IBM so long to realize how much of a good thing this was and embrace the GPL whole-heartedly.
My question to the GPL backers (and by this I mean people who believe that if something is not GPL, then it is inherently bad) is why they are willing to give up their own competitive advantage (presumably, developing innovative products) and make everyone fight the service battle with the likes of IBM? Red Hat has made it (so far) because they managed to fly under the radars of these corporate giants. And the jury is still out regarding the long term viability of these new OSS companies. But the giants have been awoken, and they will not be caught off-guard (at least not for as long) next time. How do you suggest a small company compete with these giants? Is it your intention that only the big services companies be allowed to sustain a viable business model?
I doubt that this is the intention of any of the proponents of GPL in the developer community. This is the resulting outcome, however. So, I believe that more work needs to go into developing a new license. If you believe that all code should be available to the masses for no charge, then that is your prerogative - the same way that some people sincerely believe that communism is the correct economic model. Just remember that even in that model, it was the apparatchiks that tricked the masses to work for peanuts, while they were feasting in the dachas on the Black Sea.
For those of us who believe that there must be a way to make decent money from an idea that we implement, the GPL seems to take away all our assets and advantages compared to the behemoths. I understand the general apprehension that many feel about contributing to a project that they feel would result in financial rewards for the originator, but not for the developer. The GPL solution that is being provided, however, merely shifts the gains to some other entity. It is saying that if I can't figure out a way to capitalize on this work, they neither should you. I think that this is inherently the wrong approach. What needs to be discussed and developed is a new class of license that allows the rewards to somehow be shared amongst the developing community. I would like to hear more discussion from people who have thought about how to best share the fruits of one's labor. Any ideas?
As an aside, I believe that George Bernard Shaw said something to the effect of "Any man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool, and any man who is still a communist at the age of thirty is an even bigger fool." I think that much of the talk that is centered around GPL has to do with the fact that much of (specially, the vocal part) the developer community falls into this age bracket. They are idealistic, and they have found a true revolutionary in RMS. How else could one explain the war of words that goes on between the GPL and BSD camps. They seem like individuals that started a revolution together, but are now squabbling over the next step. You probably need zealots to get the word out, but I believe that it is the pragmatists that would eventually make believers of the world at large.
As a last point, I think that a lot (OK, some) of us remember the days when IBM was the only game in town and gouged customers. We have at least read of their tactics with FUD to make sure that better hardware never made it. They made all kinds of false promises to make sure people would not buy the competition's machines. IBM finally lost the game because of the PC, and sees in the GPL a way to make up for its losses. It doesn't hurt that most of the people writing here have grown up in an age when the "real" bad guy is MS. MS is not doing anything IBM wouldn't have done. Monopolies try to protect their monopolies. Now, if some people hate MS so much as to contend that we need to be promoting these other companies, then that is a flawed argument. I think that OSS has a real chance to level the playing field and make the little guys stand up and be counted. What this means is that we need a way to be able to pool our resources and share the rewards. I don't think that it should mean that we should pool our resources to line the pockets of others. IBM should play its hand the way it sees fit, as so should MS. That doesn't mean that for everyone else the option is either being a lackey of one camp or the other.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know whether I am just blowing hot air, because I am not sure where the bottlenecks where in the test, but it seems to me that if you are going to use expensive RDRAM for the Intel, you should be using inexpensive DDR RAM for the AMD. Also, I wonder why they chose 256MB of RAM, instead of, say, 512MB? I could definitely understand why you wouldn't want to spend too much on the RDRAM, but what about for the AMD? On a cost basis, 512MB of DDRAM is a lot more affordable. Lastly, why aren't any of these guys using the latest 1.4GHz AMD chips? Is there some type of problem with these chips?
As a matter of curiosity, any take on the "community" attitude towards licenses such as QPL or the BitKeeper license? Is there any sympathy for a license that is free for the general user, but costs money for those who want to commercialize it (QPL) or use it in some proprietary fashion (BitKeeper)?
Also, regarding the comment about projects such as Mozilla being the wave of the future (at least in the OSS community), are we to assume that therefore only projects that actually lose out in the proprietary world would then try to live on in the OSS world? It sounds like all should jump onto an established project, and not devote too much of their time to it (they need to pay the bills after all).
Lastly, hoping to recoup your investment on a software application or platform does not mean that you are thinking of becoming the next Bill Gates! I think that all agree that all of us would do our best to ensure that this type of strangle hold never appears again! I wonder what some of the OSS luminaries think should be the business models of companies thinking to compete in this arena? I wonder how many real success stories are out there? Is it only Red Hat which has managed to make some money in this field? If there are others, are any of them pushing a GPL product, or do they have some other type of license?
Thanks for your thoughts and insights.
The question, as the original poster stated however, is how can a small business that is developing software hope to make a living, if the only thing that it has is given away for nothing. Surely there must be some payback for a company that has spent a couple of years developing something innovative. I don't think that the standard answer of consulting contracts would make it, however. It is EXACTLY the bigger players that are riding the wave of the OSS community. That is why the like of IBM are such eager supporters. If you had the highest rated services business in the world, wouldn't you be pushing for a model that is only services oriented? It is a surprise it took IBM as long to make its move (or maybe it was just preparing in the background).
The question for smaller players is how do you recoup your investment if you give away your assets? Are pure-GPL proponents saying that one should only work part-time on these projects and make a living elsewhere? Or are they saying that we should be on the payroll of IBM, or HP, or even Red Hat? How is this individual full-time type of innovation, with its associated costs and sacrifices, going to be rewarded? Clearly, some new paradigms need to be developed that are more inclusionary than "GPL or nothing".
One other thing, just because this issue has been thought of before, doesn't mean it is no longer an issue. In fact, as more people start thinking about pursuing an OSS path, this issue would presumably become more pressing. Even a metric as stupid as number of lines of code contributed is a beginning. Ignoring the issue will not make it go away. I wish that the slashdot powers to be would start a real discussion in this regard and see what the community has to say. I am hoping not all are as dumbfounded as I am by this.
Lastly, if you know of a forum better suited to address this issue, then I would be glad to pursue matters there.
The argument is often made that all code should be GPL and that money should be made solely on the basis of service and consulting contracts. It is no surprise to me that the likes of IBM and HP would prefer to release their code under GPL. They are in the best position to ensure that they reap the benefits of any improvement to their code. What are the chances that Joe Hacker could compete with the likes of IBM in providing a service contract to the community at large? None.
So what does the GPL actually mean for the average small company that is trying to develop "revolutionary" software? It means that in order to get other small players to cooperate with you, you risk the attention of the likes of IBM and HP. If you are developing a great application that you would love to share with the developing community, then GPL also means that you share it with IBM. In essence, these GPL advocates are inadvertently (I hope) cheering for the IBMs of the world. I am surprised that it took IBM so long to realize how much of a good thing this was and embrace the GPL whole-heartedly.
My question to the GPL backers (and by this I mean people who believe that if something is not GPL, then it is inherently bad) is why they are willing to give up their own competitive advantage (presumably, developing innovative products) and make everyone fight the service battle with the likes of IBM? Red Hat has made it (so far) because they managed to fly under the radars of these corporate giants. And the jury is still out regarding the long term viability of these new OSS companies. But the giants have been awoken, and they will not be caught off-guard (at least not for as long) next time. How do you suggest a small company compete with these giants? Is it your intention that only the big services companies be allowed to sustain a viable business model?
I doubt that this is the intention of any of the proponents of GPL in the developer community. This is the resulting outcome, however. So, I believe that more work needs to go into developing a new license. If you believe that all code should be available to the masses for no charge, then that is your prerogative - the same way that some people sincerely believe that communism is the correct economic model. Just remember that even in that model, it was the apparatchiks that tricked the masses to work for peanuts, while they were feasting in the dachas on the Black Sea.
For those of us who believe that there must be a way to make decent money from an idea that we implement, the GPL seems to take away all our assets and advantages compared to the behemoths. I understand the general apprehension that many feel about contributing to a project that they feel would result in financial rewards for the originator, but not for the developer. The GPL solution that is being provided, however, merely shifts the gains to some other entity. It is saying that if I can't figure out a way to capitalize on this work, they neither should you. I think that this is inherently the wrong approach. What needs to be discussed and developed is a new class of license that allows the rewards to somehow be shared amongst the developing community. I would like to hear more discussion from people who have thought about how to best share the fruits of one's labor. Any ideas?
As an aside, I believe that George Bernard Shaw said something to the effect of "Any man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool, and any man who is still a communist at the age of thirty is an even bigger fool." I think that much of the talk that is centered around GPL has to do with the fact that much of (specially, the vocal part) the developer community falls into this age bracket. They are idealistic, and they have found a true revolutionary in RMS. How else could one explain the war of words that goes on between the GPL and BSD camps. They seem like individuals that started a revolution together, but are now squabbling over the next step. You probably need zealots to get the word out, but I believe that it is the pragmatists that would eventually make believers of the world at large.
As a last point, I think that a lot (OK, some) of us remember the days when IBM was the only game in town and gouged customers. We have at least read of their tactics with FUD to make sure that better hardware never made it. They made all kinds of false promises to make sure people would not buy the competition's machines. IBM finally lost the game because of the PC, and sees in the GPL a way to make up for its losses. It doesn't hurt that most of the people writing here have grown up in an age when the "real" bad guy is MS. MS is not doing anything IBM wouldn't have done. Monopolies try to protect their monopolies. Now, if some people hate MS so much as to contend that we need to be promoting these other companies, then that is a flawed argument. I think that OSS has a real chance to level the playing field and make the little guys stand up and be counted. What this means is that we need a way to be able to pool our resources and share the rewards. I don't think that it should mean that we should pool our resources to line the pockets of others. IBM should play its hand the way it sees fit, as so should MS. That doesn't mean that for everyone else the option is either being a lackey of one camp or the other.
I know it's not only me, but it really seems as if everyone is really lost in this whole argument of whether BSD is better or GPL. As so many people have posted, it really depends on what your goals are. If you want to ensure the highest adoption rate, then arguably BSD is the way to go (less restrictions, probably means more adoption). If you want to make sure that all derivative works remain in the public domain (so to speak) then GPL is the way to go. But there is another aspect to all this that utterly amazes me. How is it that all these developers who are for GPL for the reason that derivative works remain GPL don't see where things seem to be heading (or maybe they don't care)?
The argument is often made that all code should be GPL and that money should be made solely on the basis of service and consulting contracts. It is no surprise to me that the likes of IBM and HP would prefer to release their code under GPL. They are in the best position to ensure that they reap the benefits of any improvement to their code. What are the chances that Joe Hacker could compete with the likes of IBM in providing a service contract to the community at large? None.
So what does the GPL actually mean for the average small company that is trying to develop "revolutionary" software? It means that in order to get other small players to cooperate with you, you risk the attention of the likes of IBM and HP. If you are developing a great application that you would love to share with the developing community, then GPL also means that you share it with IBM. In essence, these GPL advocates are inadvertently (I hope) cheering for the IBMs of the world. I am surprised that it took IBM so long to realize how much of a good thing this was and embrace the GPL whole-heartedly.
My question to the GPL backers (and by this I mean people who believe that if something is not GPL, then it is inherently bad) is why they are willing to give up their own competitive advantage (presumably, developing innovative products) and make everyone fight the service battle with the likes of IBM? Red Hat has made it (so far) because they managed to fly under the radars of these corporate giants. And the jury is still out regarding the long term viability of these new OSS companies. But the giants have been awoken, and they will not be caught off-guard (at least not for as long) next time. How do you suggest a small company compete with these giants? Is it your intention that only the big services companies be allowed to sustain a viable business model?
I doubt that this is the intention of any of the proponents of GPL in the developer community. This is the resulting outcome, however. So, I believe that more work needs to go into developing a new license. If you believe that all code should be available to the masses for no charge, then that is your prerogative - the same way that some people sincerely believe that communism is the correct economic model. Just remember that even in that model, it was the apparatchiks that tricked the masses to work for peanuts, while they were feasting in the dachas on the Black Sea.
For those of us who believe that there must be a way to make decent money from an idea that we implement, the GPL seems to take away all our assets and advantages compared to the behemoths. I understand the general apprehension that many feel about contributing to a project that they feel would result in financial rewards for the originator, but not for the developer. The GPL solution that is being provided, however, merely shifts the gains to some other entity. It is saying that if I can't figure out a way to capitalize on this work, they neither should you. I think that this is inherently the wrong approach. What needs to be discussed and developed is a new class of license that allows the rewards to somehow be shared amongst the developing community. I would like to hear more discussion from people who have thought about how to best share the fruits of one's labor. Any ideas?
As an aside, I believe that George Bernard Shaw said something to the effect of "Any man who is not a communist at the age of twenty is a fool, and any man who is still a communist at the age of thirty is an even bigger fool." I think that much of the talk that is centered around GPL has to do with the fact that much of (specially, the vocal part) the developer community falls into this age bracket. They are idealistic, and they have found a true revolutionary in RMS. How else could one explain the war of words that goes on between the GPL and BSD camps. They seem like individuals that started a revolution together, but are now squabbling over the next step. You probably need zealots to get the word out, but I believe that it is the pragmatists that would eventually make believers of the world at large.
As a last point, I think that a lot (OK, some) of us remember the days when IBM was the only game in town and gouged customers. We have at least read of their tactics with FUD to make sure that better hardware never made it. They made all kinds of false promises to make sure people would not buy the competition's machines. IBM finally lost the game because of the PC, and sees in the GPL a way to make up for its losses. It doesn't hurt that most of the people writing here have grown up in an age when the "real" bad guy is MS. MS is not doing anything IBM wouldn't have done. Monopolies try to protect their monopolies. Now, if some people hate MS so much as to contend that we need to be promoting these other companies, then that is a flawed argument. I think that OSS has a real chance to level the playing field and make the little guys stand up and be counted. What this means is that we need a way to be able to pool our resources and share the rewards. I don't think that it should mean that we should pool our resources to line the pockets of others. IBM should play its hand the way it sees fit, as so should MS. That doesn't mean that for everyone else the option is either being a lackey of one camp or the other.