There's a key difference here. While Android adds new libraries and APIs, it does not break the Java core. In fact, the key point of Oracle's pissy attitude is that they don't want Java SE compatible code stacks on portable devices; they want to force all portable devices to be crippled with Java ME.
To carry forward with your Microsoft point, it would be like Microsoft insisting that you can only run 16-bit windows on portable devices, with 32 and 64 bit versions reserved for "desktops."
I lived in Ontario during Bob Rae's tenure. And you know what? With the way the Canadian economy was chugging and sputtering at the time, any politician stuck with managing those years was doomed to be flagged a "failure" for not working miracles.
By the same token, the Harper government got an easy ride on a good economy in the past, tried to deregulate our banks (and fortunately failed, because otherwise we would have had our own mortgage meltdown), and then claimed credit for the "good management" to blow every last dime of that increased revenue and then some, pushing us into a deficit situation.
Now they're "cutting" all the fat they added to the government, comparing numbers to 2-3 years ago, and claiming once again that it's "good management" and "right sizing." The problem is, go back 5-10 years, and you realize it was the same Conservative government that bloated the bureaucracy during the past decade that they're now taking credit for cutting.
How easy it would be if everyone only had to fix the problems they made themselves instead of dealing with real world issues responsibly that are beyond their control.
No one who has ever worked with the spoken or written word in any tongue used by humans on this planet would ever consider a programming language to be comparable in difficulty or flexibility.
For starters, programming languages have mathematically verifiable syntax; the very concept of syntactic and grammatic creativity is ideally ruled out by a programming language, whereas a human language is intended to be as flexible and expressive as possible, often resulting in some pretty wild variations on syntax and grammar for effect. And don't get me started on slang...
So, no, I don't think programming languages should be copyrightable. An implementation of the language is subject to copyright, but not the syntax and grammar of the language itself.
Think of it this way: programming languages are used to express copyrightable material. How can you apply a copyright to the pen used to scribe the code?
When you lash together the disparate clouds of application, compute, and storage facilities from the various vendors in that space, and truly begin to tie them together as distributed applications, an amazing thing happens.
The work load distributes. The storage requirements distribute. The compute requirements distribute.
And the more distributed they become, the closer we approach a true peer-to-peer architecture.
Now take it one step further, with each person having their own "data server" nodes in their home or leased from such cloud providers. Your device is no longer used for storage, but just presentation. It caches the data from your server(s), but it doesn't need to keep the data unless you expect to use it again in the near future. Your whole SSD/HDD system in the device becomes a cache, similar to the Andrew File System, but using different communications technologies including torrents that map into a virtual file space, and private downloads directly from your data servers for content that you own personally.
Suddenly you realize the problem is not that we need infinite capacity, but that we need to break the mindset that industries like banks "own" the data. They don't. It's OUR data, and it should be on OUR servers, with them needing OUR permission to access or modify it.
Hey, I didn't say brake-torquing was a good idea. But you do see kids doing it to cars all the time -- sometimes kids in their fifties! *LOL*
Personally I'm more concerned about what happens when the oxygen sensor goes on a car. When that happens, you have to keep "feathering" the gas pedal even while stopped so that the engine doesn't stall out on your way to the shop to get it fixed.
If tapping the brake overrides the accelerator, that means that in the future you'll have to pay a tow truck to get your oxygen sensor replaced. A rather pricey add-on to what is already an over-priced part.
Given that electronic fuel injection systems really only use a pedal sensor rather than an old-fashioned accelerator linkage moving an arm on the carb, it should be quite easy for a tap on the brake to override the accelerator inputs.
But the brake-torquing fans are going to be pissed!:D
Australia and New Zealand are notorious for having "pipe problems" due to the long-haul links they have to use, and the US expects them to have all their critical business data travelling those overloaded pipes for the convenience of US agencies and companies??!?!!?!
So the convenience of American firms is now justification for slagging the sound and reasonable business practices of foreign nations?
Navel gazing US again. If they navel gaze any closer they're going to find themselves eyeballing their own stomachs from the inside...:P
The people involved did a despicable thing. But I can't see how it's any more illegal than someone shouting "Jump!" at someone on a roof top when emergency services are trying to talk them down.
If they insist on staff writing reviews of the software, then take some company time to download and review the software, and write one up.
Personally I have no problem with a company asking for my opinions on a product, even if I'm an employee, provided they're ok with an honest opinion based on my actual experiences with it.
But I'm a harsh critic, so I can't imagine any employer ever wanting me to do so publicly rather than internally for the tech team.
During my first contract position with AVCO Financial Services out of London, Ontario, I was provided one of the first 200 PS/2 Model 80 systems to be manufactured because the Model 60 I had previously was mathematically and provably incapable of running the overnight batch no matter how much performance tuning would have been done.
Ah, those were the days.
Working with SCO engineers to debug the QIC20 tape drives that used a floppy drive controller interface. Pre-1.0.:D
In Canada, the first thing the courts would do would call for a media black out until the judgement is rendered, and then likely another black out until sentencing. The idea is to prevent bias in the potential jury pool.
Unfortunately, due to incompetence and delays in deciding to file charges and make an arrest, they're going to have one hell of a time finding a "jury of peers" that isn't tainted by public opinion and forced to recuse themselves from participating.
Microsoft is under particularly intense scrutiny by the public because of the monitoring and threat of a break-up of the company many years ago. Once you've been accused of monopolistic practices, you are forever branded as a monopolist at heart. Your company may survive unbroken, but the public trust is permanently dead.
The only company to ever protect their image in the face of such an investigation was IBM. Even AT&T was never as respected post-breakup as they were prior to being labelled "monopolist", "competitive market place" or no.
Apple has only escaped "unscathed" in the sense that no one has been willing to put it on the table: Apple's predatory supplier pricing is what forces slave-like conditions on their foreign employees. Local market value is irrelevant when the foreign provider is not complying with generally accepted international human rights standards. Buying from such suppliers is unethical and immoral, and Apple is being pressured heavily for it.
But even condoning wage-slavery is not as "evil" in society's eyes as being branded "monopolist."
The only thing that gets an 'merican more ticked off than an abusive monopolist is a "Godless Communist" or "Socialist" (like us Canajuns.)
Welcome to Tennessee, where your gut instinct, personal opinions, "faith", and blind dogma are accorded the same level of authority as valid scientific theory.
Up Next: Tennessee repeals the law of gravity, fulfilling a life-long dream of the Canadian Rhinocerous Party.
it would seem Sony boycotted themselves on the road to insolvency if they don't wake up to the realities of servicing a web-enabled market of distributed systems. Without security and data integrity, people will leave in droves, because they have no option but to put up with whatever lax security is in place this time.
Without their corporate network model, there is nothing to distinguish Sony's hardware from anyone else's except for proprietary cabling, ports, and overpriced equipment as a result. The PS/3 was the first system they ever delivered that didn't go all out to be proprietary in every way conceivable.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the standardized interconnect of digital protocols.
It stopped mattering who you bought your devices from. They all implement the standards as best they can for a price point. Show me an LCD monitor that doesn't do 1080p nowadays, whether it's embedded in a laptop, a monitor, or a television.
I'm just surprised we seem to have stopped at 1080p as a standard just when LCD manufacturing reliability got to the point where we could produce much higher resolution monitors quite easily.
High end displays all compete on lumens and black levels as well as responsiveness (refresh rate.) As technology was cross-licensed and the manufacturing facilities consolidated, what did anyone think? That brand name would really matter all that much in the long run?
People don't forget stupid marketing mistakes like insisting on reporting the Peak Power Level a Sony amplifier can handle instead of the Continuous Power Level ratings used by high-end amplifier manufacturers.
People don't forget having their credit card information stolen.
People don't forget about being without service for over a month.
People won't buy your products just for the tag line "SO, New York!"
Concepts like the taskbar, process list, or dock are so ingrained in the way people who have computer experience think about using their systems that it was inevitable for this feature to make it's way into pretty much any user interface on the planet.
If you think of the "new" tablet-enabling interfaces, all they really do is specify a larger grid for the desktop of icons so they're easy to touch as well as click. That's the big "innovation", folks. Mouse gestures with your finger and bigger icons.
But when you dig behind the pretty new UIs down to the data that people manipulate, you realize that everything can be defined as an anchored matrix of abstract UI widgets, to be expressed at runtime by the platform the same way that the browser renders and HTML layout. You can precompile that model into system code, render it as dynamic HTML web forms with or without dynamic AJAX concepts, and use it to define pretty much any user interface.
Which reminds me -- I forgot to specify the Desktop widget hierarchy as well as the application widget hierarchy in my 2.0 BAM specifications...:)
Sun pegged it right when they said "The Network Is The Computer."
The specific speed of the network interconnect, the topology of the network fabric, and whether you normally think of it as a network connection are all that distinguish any multi-core system from a distributed cluster. Cloud computing begins to scratch the implications of this at the cluster/site level, and now it would seem some VLSI gearheads are thinking in the same abstract model at the chip level.
Once you start thinking of all your compute and storage resources as nodes in a network, you can start applying some very interesting algorithms and research results to the problem of improving throughput and reducing latency within the network of networks.
But if the network is the computer, I guess that makes a distributed global collection of nodes the Cluster.
The insanity of building TWO facilities because neither side is willing to let go of their new favourite toy is absolutely mind-boggling.
So if they're like children, the public and governments are being really shitty parents be letting this foolishness continue instead of spanking them both and giving it to a third nation that isn't even on the application list just to spite both greedy contestants.
There is a significant percentage of the North American population that would also like to have access to a government-sanctioned, identity-proven national intranet.
You can see somewhat less aggressive offerings with Service Canada's account registration process and the number of federal systems that use Service Canada accounts as the identity service within the government clusters. Or the provincial Health Cards that are used as identification for far more than medical services (at your choice, of course.)
There is no email service, and the federal government's built-in search service is horrible, so it's actually easier to find government content through Google or Bing.
But unless the intranet is the only 'net in Iran, I think there is a good chance they're giving a lot of their citizens something they actually want. Think IOL - Iran On Line.:P
The way I look at it, everyone is a minority. It's just a matter of picking some aspect of your heritage which isn't common amongst the population, and boom, you're special.
The worst thing you can do is rush the decision and the implementation of your business model.
In my case, the core of my software (MSS Code Factory) was always intended to be open source. However, the intent was not to launch the company/business branch of the project (Singularity One Systems, Inc.) until I had at least a couple of the proprietary support modules in place for commercial databases.
Timing would not turn out to be in my favour, however, as I was laid off last year, so I rushed getting "the company" off the ground. As a result, the company was ready to go before the proprietary extensions were, so I'm scrambling to finish at least one of the proprietary support modules so I can earn revenue from it (Oracle 11gR2 support.) I don't think I've got a bad business model, but I really shouldn't have been launching the company until May or June of this year, not January as I ended up doing.
In a nutshell, I'm using a variant on the MySQL model, where there is a open source component as well as proprietary "enterprise" modules. The open source component provides the core application code with a PostgreSQL persistence implementation, and the proprietary modules will provide the support for the commercial databases (Oracle 11gR2, Sybase ASE 12.5, DB/2 UDB, and SQL Server.)
Another distinction between the open source and commercial support is that open source will provide basic SAX parsers to enable database loader/initializers, but the commercial version will also use the SAX parsers and XSD schemas to implement cache/node synchronization. That means that you'll be able to do client-server applications with the open source implementation, but if you want synchronized data clusters, you'll need to pony up for commercial support options.
I'm one of those people who believes all software should be released as an open source core, with profits made from the support and enhancement of that core. Eventually the commercial modules will become open source as well (when I can afford it), while new modules will take on the commercial enhancement component that generates revenue.
I also believe that anyone wanting to customize and integrate the core should pay for the privilege of doing so, and opted for a dual GPLv3/commercial license model as a result. I've had many people crying and complaining that I won't release it under Apache or BSD licenses, but to me that's just someone with a great idea for a profitable enhancement that wants to get the core code for free (as in beer.) I'm not stopping them from producing a GPLv3 product enhancement; just stopping them from stealing the code for hidden use in their own product.
But I've never been one naive enough to think I could ever come up with a business model that would make everyone happy. There will always be people who think you should give them your lunch as well as your code, and there will always be people who think you should hold on to your code until you turn enough profit to "afford" to open source.
There is no easy answer, but one thing I do know for sure: you shouldn't open source software until you've come up with a viable business model for developing and supporting that software in the future. It may take time to ramp up the revenue stream so you can live off your product, and perhaps the revenue stream will never be big enough to allow that. But the biggest mistake you can make is to open source just on principal without thinking things through and figuring out a way to earn a living from your efforts.
Slashdot Mirror
There's a key difference here. While Android adds new libraries and APIs, it does not break the Java core. In fact, the key point of Oracle's pissy attitude is that they don't want Java SE compatible code stacks on portable devices; they want to force all portable devices to be crippled with Java ME.
To carry forward with your Microsoft point, it would be like Microsoft insisting that you can only run 16-bit windows on portable devices, with 32 and 64 bit versions reserved for "desktops."
I lived in Ontario during Bob Rae's tenure. And you know what? With the way the Canadian economy was chugging and sputtering at the time, any politician stuck with managing those years was doomed to be flagged a "failure" for not working miracles.
By the same token, the Harper government got an easy ride on a good economy in the past, tried to deregulate our banks (and fortunately failed, because otherwise we would have had our own mortgage meltdown), and then claimed credit for the "good management" to blow every last dime of that increased revenue and then some, pushing us into a deficit situation.
Now they're "cutting" all the fat they added to the government, comparing numbers to 2-3 years ago, and claiming once again that it's "good management" and "right sizing." The problem is, go back 5-10 years, and you realize it was the same Conservative government that bloated the bureaucracy during the past decade that they're now taking credit for cutting.
How easy it would be if everyone only had to fix the problems they made themselves instead of dealing with real world issues responsibly that are beyond their control.
No one who has ever worked with the spoken or written word in any tongue used by humans on this planet would ever consider a programming language to be comparable in difficulty or flexibility.
For starters, programming languages have mathematically verifiable syntax; the very concept of syntactic and grammatic creativity is ideally ruled out by a programming language, whereas a human language is intended to be as flexible and expressive as possible, often resulting in some pretty wild variations on syntax and grammar for effect. And don't get me started on slang...
So, no, I don't think programming languages should be copyrightable. An implementation of the language is subject to copyright, but not the syntax and grammar of the language itself.
Think of it this way: programming languages are used to express copyrightable material. How can you apply a copyright to the pen used to scribe the code?
When you lash together the disparate clouds of application, compute, and storage facilities from the various vendors in that space, and truly begin to tie them together as distributed applications, an amazing thing happens.
The work load distributes. The storage requirements distribute. The compute requirements distribute.
And the more distributed they become, the closer we approach a true peer-to-peer architecture.
Now take it one step further, with each person having their own "data server" nodes in their home or leased from such cloud providers. Your device is no longer used for storage, but just presentation. It caches the data from your server(s), but it doesn't need to keep the data unless you expect to use it again in the near future. Your whole SSD/HDD system in the device becomes a cache, similar to the Andrew File System, but using different communications technologies including torrents that map into a virtual file space, and private downloads directly from your data servers for content that you own personally.
Suddenly you realize the problem is not that we need infinite capacity, but that we need to break the mindset that industries like banks "own" the data. They don't. It's OUR data, and it should be on OUR servers, with them needing OUR permission to access or modify it.
Problem solved.
Hey, I didn't say brake-torquing was a good idea. But you do see kids doing it to cars all the time -- sometimes kids in their fifties! *LOL*
Personally I'm more concerned about what happens when the oxygen sensor goes on a car. When that happens, you have to keep "feathering" the gas pedal even while stopped so that the engine doesn't stall out on your way to the shop to get it fixed.
If tapping the brake overrides the accelerator, that means that in the future you'll have to pay a tow truck to get your oxygen sensor replaced. A rather pricey add-on to what is already an over-priced part.
Given that electronic fuel injection systems really only use a pedal sensor rather than an old-fashioned accelerator linkage moving an arm on the carb, it should be quite easy for a tap on the brake to override the accelerator inputs.
But the brake-torquing fans are going to be pissed! :D
It's a good trade representative's job to find mutually beneficial business opportunities in hopes of expanding the markets.
It is not their job to slag anyone who doesn't want to use their nation's services.
In fact, it's really, really bad business to bad-mouth your prospective customers that way, regardless of whether you work for government or industry.
Australia and New Zealand are notorious for having "pipe problems" due to the long-haul links they have to use, and the US expects them to have all their critical business data travelling those overloaded pipes for the convenience of US agencies and companies??!?!!?!
So the convenience of American firms is now justification for slagging the sound and reasonable business practices of foreign nations?
Navel gazing US again. If they navel gaze any closer they're going to find themselves eyeballing their own stomachs from the inside... :P
The people involved did a despicable thing. But I can't see how it's any more illegal than someone shouting "Jump!" at someone on a roof top when emergency services are trying to talk them down.
'nuff said.
If they insist on staff writing reviews of the software, then take some company time to download and review the software, and write one up.
Personally I have no problem with a company asking for my opinions on a product, even if I'm an employee, provided they're ok with an honest opinion based on my actual experiences with it.
But I'm a harsh critic, so I can't imagine any employer ever wanting me to do so publicly rather than internally for the tech team.
Au contraire.
During my first contract position with AVCO Financial Services out of London, Ontario, I was provided one of the first 200 PS/2 Model 80 systems to be manufactured because the Model 60 I had previously was mathematically and provably incapable of running the overnight batch no matter how much performance tuning would have been done.
Ah, those were the days.
Working with SCO engineers to debug the QIC20 tape drives that used a floppy drive controller interface. Pre-1.0. :D
In Canada, the first thing the courts would do would call for a media black out until the judgement is rendered, and then likely another black out until sentencing. The idea is to prevent bias in the potential jury pool.
Unfortunately, due to incompetence and delays in deciding to file charges and make an arrest, they're going to have one hell of a time finding a "jury of peers" that isn't tainted by public opinion and forced to recuse themselves from participating.
Microsoft is under particularly intense scrutiny by the public because of the monitoring and threat of a break-up of the company many years ago. Once you've been accused of monopolistic practices, you are forever branded as a monopolist at heart. Your company may survive unbroken, but the public trust is permanently dead.
The only company to ever protect their image in the face of such an investigation was IBM. Even AT&T was never as respected post-breakup as they were prior to being labelled "monopolist", "competitive market place" or no.
Apple has only escaped "unscathed" in the sense that no one has been willing to put it on the table: Apple's predatory supplier pricing is what forces slave-like conditions on their foreign employees. Local market value is irrelevant when the foreign provider is not complying with generally accepted international human rights standards. Buying from such suppliers is unethical and immoral, and Apple is being pressured heavily for it.
But even condoning wage-slavery is not as "evil" in society's eyes as being branded "monopolist."
The only thing that gets an 'merican more ticked off than an abusive monopolist is a "Godless Communist" or "Socialist" (like us Canajuns.)
Welcome to Tennessee, where your gut instinct, personal opinions, "faith", and blind dogma are accorded the same level of authority as valid scientific theory.
Up Next: Tennessee repeals the law of gravity, fulfilling a life-long dream of the Canadian Rhinocerous Party.
It would make a lot more sense to plow funding into fusion than it does to give tax breaks and refunds to trillion dollar oil industries...
it would seem Sony boycotted themselves on the road to insolvency if they don't wake up to the realities of servicing a web-enabled market of distributed systems. Without security and data integrity, people will leave in droves, because they have no option but to put up with whatever lax security is in place this time.
Without their corporate network model, there is nothing to distinguish Sony's hardware from anyone else's except for proprietary cabling, ports, and overpriced equipment as a result. The PS/3 was the first system they ever delivered that didn't go all out to be proprietary in every way conceivable.
But a funny thing happened on the way to the standardized interconnect of digital protocols.
It stopped mattering who you bought your devices from. They all implement the standards as best they can for a price point. Show me an LCD monitor that doesn't do 1080p nowadays, whether it's embedded in a laptop, a monitor, or a television.
I'm just surprised we seem to have stopped at 1080p as a standard just when LCD manufacturing reliability got to the point where we could produce much higher resolution monitors quite easily.
High end displays all compete on lumens and black levels as well as responsiveness (refresh rate.) As technology was cross-licensed and the manufacturing facilities consolidated, what did anyone think? That brand name would really matter all that much in the long run?
People don't forget stupid marketing mistakes like insisting on reporting the Peak Power Level a Sony amplifier can handle instead of the Continuous Power Level ratings used by high-end amplifier manufacturers.
People don't forget having their credit card information stolen.
People don't forget about being without service for over a month.
People won't buy your products just for the tag line "SO, New York!"
I wonder how long it will be until the Apple fanbois realize single-tasking operating systems are a joke at any level of portability... :P
Concepts like the taskbar, process list, or dock are so ingrained in the way people who have computer experience think about using their systems that it was inevitable for this feature to make it's way into pretty much any user interface on the planet.
If you think of the "new" tablet-enabling interfaces, all they really do is specify a larger grid for the desktop of icons so they're easy to touch as well as click. That's the big "innovation", folks. Mouse gestures with your finger and bigger icons.
But when you dig behind the pretty new UIs down to the data that people manipulate, you realize that everything can be defined as an anchored matrix of abstract UI widgets, to be expressed at runtime by the platform the same way that the browser renders and HTML layout. You can precompile that model into system code, render it as dynamic HTML web forms with or without dynamic AJAX concepts, and use it to define pretty much any user interface.
Which reminds me -- I forgot to specify the Desktop widget hierarchy as well as the application widget hierarchy in my 2.0 BAM specifications... :)
Sun pegged it right when they said "The Network Is The Computer."
The specific speed of the network interconnect, the topology of the network fabric, and whether you normally think of it as a network connection are all that distinguish any multi-core system from a distributed cluster. Cloud computing begins to scratch the implications of this at the cluster/site level, and now it would seem some VLSI gearheads are thinking in the same abstract model at the chip level.
Once you start thinking of all your compute and storage resources as nodes in a network, you can start applying some very interesting algorithms and research results to the problem of improving throughput and reducing latency within the network of networks.
But if the network is the computer, I guess that makes a distributed global collection of nodes the Cluster.
The insanity of building TWO facilities because neither side is willing to let go of their new favourite toy is absolutely mind-boggling.
So if they're like children, the public and governments are being really shitty parents be letting this foolishness continue instead of spanking them both and giving it to a third nation that isn't even on the application list just to spite both greedy contestants.
There is a significant percentage of the North American population that would also like to have access to a government-sanctioned, identity-proven national intranet.
You can see somewhat less aggressive offerings with Service Canada's account registration process and the number of federal systems that use Service Canada accounts as the identity service within the government clusters. Or the provincial Health Cards that are used as identification for far more than medical services (at your choice, of course.)
There is no email service, and the federal government's built-in search service is horrible, so it's actually easier to find government content through Google or Bing.
But unless the intranet is the only 'net in Iran, I think there is a good chance they're giving a lot of their citizens something they actually want. Think IOL - Iran On Line. :P
The way I look at it, everyone is a minority. It's just a matter of picking some aspect of your heritage which isn't common amongst the population, and boom, you're special.
Except that everyone is special.
So no one is.
The worst thing you can do is rush the decision and the implementation of your business model.
In my case, the core of my software (MSS Code Factory) was always intended to be open source. However, the intent was not to launch the company/business branch of the project (Singularity One Systems, Inc.) until I had at least a couple of the proprietary support modules in place for commercial databases.
Timing would not turn out to be in my favour, however, as I was laid off last year, so I rushed getting "the company" off the ground. As a result, the company was ready to go before the proprietary extensions were, so I'm scrambling to finish at least one of the proprietary support modules so I can earn revenue from it (Oracle 11gR2 support.) I don't think I've got a bad business model, but I really shouldn't have been launching the company until May or June of this year, not January as I ended up doing.
In a nutshell, I'm using a variant on the MySQL model, where there is a open source component as well as proprietary "enterprise" modules. The open source component provides the core application code with a PostgreSQL persistence implementation, and the proprietary modules will provide the support for the commercial databases (Oracle 11gR2, Sybase ASE 12.5, DB/2 UDB, and SQL Server.)
Another distinction between the open source and commercial support is that open source will provide basic SAX parsers to enable database loader/initializers, but the commercial version will also use the SAX parsers and XSD schemas to implement cache/node synchronization. That means that you'll be able to do client-server applications with the open source implementation, but if you want synchronized data clusters, you'll need to pony up for commercial support options.
I'm one of those people who believes all software should be released as an open source core, with profits made from the support and enhancement of that core. Eventually the commercial modules will become open source as well (when I can afford it), while new modules will take on the commercial enhancement component that generates revenue.
I also believe that anyone wanting to customize and integrate the core should pay for the privilege of doing so, and opted for a dual GPLv3/commercial license model as a result. I've had many people crying and complaining that I won't release it under Apache or BSD licenses, but to me that's just someone with a great idea for a profitable enhancement that wants to get the core code for free (as in beer.) I'm not stopping them from producing a GPLv3 product enhancement; just stopping them from stealing the code for hidden use in their own product.
But I've never been one naive enough to think I could ever come up with a business model that would make everyone happy. There will always be people who think you should give them your lunch as well as your code, and there will always be people who think you should hold on to your code until you turn enough profit to "afford" to open source.
There is no easy answer, but one thing I do know for sure: you shouldn't open source software until you've come up with a viable business model for developing and supporting that software in the future. It may take time to ramp up the revenue stream so you can live off your product, and perhaps the revenue stream will never be big enough to allow that. But the biggest mistake you can make is to open source just on principal without thinking things through and figuring out a way to earn a living from your efforts.
Silly me. I keep using terms like 100USD and 200CDN because the dollar symbol doesn't mean squat about what the currency is actually worth.
Oh yeah. They like to pretend that a Greek Euro is worth as much as they other Euros.
Good luck with that...