They will get their day in court and we will see. New technology sometimes makes for logical changes in law that allow for innovation instead of protectionism.
The main argument seems to be that we are able to produce our own copies of music, but other companies are not allowed to produce copies of the music for listening even if it is verified.
Apparently the RIAA is afraid of certain security problems with the my.MP3.com (well that and monopolizing all music).
Because the RIAA is more interested in litigating and monopolizing than real innovation.
What they don't get is that their current model does not work in a world where we are increasingly getting away from music distribution as a tangible product that you can hold in your hand.
I have never tried my.mp3.com. Can anyone tell me if you can give out your password or something and allow anyone to listen to your CD's simultaneously? If that is possible, I would say that they do have some merit. In fact, it just eliminates the entire ripping process for those that want to listen to music on their computer..
It's interesting though. It brings to light some facets of the internet that are uncontrollable. People mirroring and posting code like this as an act of civil disobedience can not be stopped. All they can do is sue the larger bodies involved to try and recover "damages".
(whether I support this particular cause or not is besides the point)
He is only a symptom of a greater problem which is another story for another day.
His dreams, at least after attaining a sufficient amount of income to live indefinitely in security, were to attain a level of power and force his way of thinking on others. This is why he often states that Microsoft must be free to innovate. His delusion is that he is a demi-god shaping the future for a common good.
He could call it quits any time and be swimming in money forever. Therefore I can only assume that motive.
I never stated a complete lack of anything. Hopefully he will also keep true to his claim that upon his death, almost all of his money will be divested to chosen charities.
Isn't it just great how hedonistic beliefs ultimately prevail in american society? Bill Gates may be a brilliant businessman, but he is blind or chooses to be blind regarding many social and ethical issues. I guess this is what society worships.
I'd rather die than be Bill Gates.
"In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"
I see where you're coming from. I often get a kick out of the supposition and blatantly stupid dogma in some slashdot posts. I happen to enjoy heated discussions though. They often end in at least one party learning something (hopefully).
Anyway, your thoughts do provoke a renewed awareness in possible "special interest" anonymous cowards. I absolutely hate those that use AC to misrepresent themselves to deflect or blow smoke.
Here's my view (correct me if I'm wrong or your point differs):
Advertisers get more bang for their buck. Networks get nothing. I think that allowing this company to freely rebroadcast is a slippery slope. If anyone can rebroadcast, they have no internal method of determining how much to charge advertisers -- and they therefore lose money.
"One can invariable guess the smartness of a coder by his lack of arrogant hostility towards others."
Yes, in my experience, those that knew what they were talking about did not yell or scream or grumble about not doing things their way. They intelligently explain why we should do a process their way, and we take value in their explanation.
Those that are often rigid, are also often frightened by the fact that their lack of knowledge does not allow them to modify their work flow to the needs of those around them.
I have on occasion met brilliant programmers who are unable to work in teams and are convinced that everyone around them is a complete idiot (which is often relatively true). I just take this for lack of emotional development or too much focus on a goal.
What I do not have, is respect for those that whine, and kick, and scream instead of trying to change or get both parties to partially compromise to achieve a goal. Intelligent communication is the medium in which this is done. You do not have to become passive to move away from hostility.
I think your post is flawed. I think your metaphor is flawed. No one is overdoing tolerance. We are seeking balance.
I do not blindly support the status quo. I do not blindly support hidden agendas or propaganda. I do not blindly support open source.
When I post, I post my own thoughts. If someone replies and I do not see where they are coming from - I reply and ask, or provide a contrary argument.
I agree that sometimes there is too much value put into arguments converse to the flow of a story or a post. However, since anyone can reply to these comments, the integrity of the forum is not subverted.
The key word in the post that you replied to was intelligent and thoughtful. If you question the moderations as well as the posts validity, why not reply to try and nullify the argument with intelligent and thoughtful posts of your own.
What I do find bad is the lack of typical end user applications. Most X applications on freshmeat typically fulfill specific goals of those developing the product. This does not always meet the needs of typical end users who need an easier to use UI or documentation legible to the average computer user.
Even free applications on www.winfiles.com are usually more user friendly (as well as shareware). Also, since many are recreational projects, they never get close to their commercial alternatives.
Hopefully this problem will be rectified - either by the big boys moving in and making Linux accessible to the normal user in their interest - or benificial standards agreed upon by an initiative interested in making it accessible.
If Linux becomes successful enough, we might even see many commercial applications that cater to the end user such as easy to use image editors (I'm talking good UI and easy process hand holding), and just about everything broderbund, sierra and others develop. I am not convinced that it is possible for these particular categories to be open sourced because recreational projects really usually do not go into every possible detail and take the time to effectively plan except for their own use. They also usually are working to fulfill their own goals for a program and not providing a solution to others problems for compensation.
In short, I think it's because those who have input in the program are generally working to fulfill the goals of the community that is contributing.
I completely agree with you on the fact that open source software will work in just about every situation. I do, however, have an objection to the GPL being good in all situations. Here are two examples; ---
1) It makes for almost perfect competition. Therefore it is only suitable for glue or base framework to your business model. The only way around this is to keep your changes completely internal.
The converse argument would be to look at companies such as RHAT. I believe this to be invalid because:
a) Operating Systems is a very wide market. Therefore it does not apply to most software.
b) There's no way in hell they can get a traditional software company profit margin, unless they provide value added closed source or complete solutions.
2) There are some really stupid limits on commercial extension. The LGPL fixes this.
---
There are some other arguments against open source in general as well: ---
1) Some large projects take substantial resources to maintain and extend. There are a lot of projects that do not begin and end after a program meets specifications. Under open source, the customer has the right to fire you and have someone else extend the product, possibly putting you out in the cold. This can be especially hard on companies who have built reliance on their customers and/or want to expand their business. The problem is magnified many times if the market for your product is limited to only a few potential customers. Therefore, you have to be very careful with your contract (if you even have one, ha).
In the end, it is more efficient. However, it might not be in my best interest. If anyone can come along and underbid my contract and take over the work I had been doing, I might think twice.
2) The goodwill of humans can't be taken for granted in business. If I use a personally made toolkit to make a variety of applications, I do not want others using that commercially. Someone may use my code in other applications without asking. To fix the problem, I can restrict use of certain code, and in the event of violation, litigate. Another solution is to LGPL parts of the code to enforce return on modification.
--
Anyway, I want to ensure myself a healthy return while being efficient for my customers as well. What I do not want is to make my work a commodity that is easily duplicated.
"I work for a company that produces software DVD players for 9x/NT"
So do I.
"We determined that it would not be viable at this time because:"
Same here. Except for different reasons. Number one is paranoia of management. Number two is lack of experienced people to actually do the porting. Number three being that we would have to overhaul our tech support staff and systems to include linux. Number 4 and last being market size, as you had already stated.
"b) the linux community is generally open source oriented. We predicted that piracy would be more prevalent"
That's a stupid comment to make. Any commercial software that people like will be pirated to some degree. Just keep the price within reasonable limits, and you might reach better economies of scale.
"c) constantly changing systems that would be hard to support"
Yep, we've been monitoring for profit closed source software developers such as Lokisoft for a while. The cycle of change is slower than you think.
"There are also potential technical support nightmares helping new linux users through a non-standardized system."
Yes this is true. Although, you can take the stance of only supporting more prevalent distributions. Even IBM does this.
"There is potential in the future -- but I don't see it being soon"
Just wait for XFree86 4.0 and specialized multimedia interfaces. They will be here soon.
"Of course, a fat Internet pipe is a prerequisite: even with my 5Mbps ADSL line, the installation took the best part of the day"
I'm guessing he must have used ftp.cdrom.com, because I install off the mit and virginia tech mirrors in about 30 minutes.
"I'm accustomed to..."
He states his bias at least. It would, however, be better if he looked at the setup from a perspective accepting change.
It also seems that he failed to look at the handbook or read the mailing list archives -- because his problems would have been easily avoided if he had done so.
When I first used freebsd 2.1, I actually read the documentation and did not run into any major problems. I also had never used *nix, except basic commands on SunOS and hp/ux. In about a week, I knew everything I needed to know to run the system, and in two I was cvsupping and doing make world (though I did run into some compiling errors from time to time).
He then goes on to mention the lack of journalling, but never mentions softupdates. He then mentions the lack of commercial support. This is true -- however, he fails to mention the wealth of information in the mailing list archives, handbook and better written man pages. I have never run into a problem that was not fixed by searching the mailing list archives, except when it was a problem with current -- which meant I had to ask on the current mailing lists.
One valid point he does make, is the lack of documentation on/boot. Although, I do not see why he would want to screw with this given he didn't even want to do a custom install.
"I was longing for a package management system along the lines of Red Hat's RPM that would have done the job in five minutes"
I guess he never heard of sysinstall packages or upgrade. He could have gotten the latest binaries through this process without wasting his time compiling.
The only thing that I see lacking is version control in pkg_add and pkg_delete. Even then, all you have to do is delete and then readd. pkg_delete usually does not delete the renamed files -- since it usually installs blah.conf.sample or whatever. It's up to you to figure out the differences and move the configs over. To me this is far more elegant than not knowing what exactly is being done. Though, the end user probably wouldn't agree.
It's an ok article -- except for the fact that he is writing it from a biased perspective.
Yes, but the real question is if this is a sustainable business model. If forced to provide all changes to your product, competition will flourish and this sector of the market as a whole will reach a point of diminishing returns -- from which some will leave market and others will join -- producing a cycle that is not very good in the eyes of the shareholder.
However, the hype surrounding linux has also brought proprietary software built around that free software. This model is possibly sustainable if handled properly due to at least temporary product differentiation. If you offer product differentiation that fulfills a market need that free software does not, then you can likely become profitable.
Unfortunately, this model is not similar to the proprietary model that microsoft runs. Therefore, the market capitalization surrounding these companies is almost completely based on hype. Why? Because this new model relies on support, service, and partially proprietary extensions -- and these industries do not have large profit margins.
Companies such as VA Linux offer very little product or service differentiation in their own specialization. If they can move more towards producing real solutions, they can become a solid player. This sector of the industry is growing at an exponential pace, and there seems to be room for many. They will, however, have to compete with the likes of IBM who have used their past reputation and power of brand name to partially reinvent themselves in this changing market.
SGI, at a glance, seems to be the victim of a few very large long term strategic planning mistakes. In my opinion, if they can provide sufficient product differentiation and added value to forego the recently commodified pc market, or cater specifically to the high end and niche markets, they have a very good future.
Again, those last three giants aren't even specifically in the free software market. They are only leveraging its hype due to the me-too effect. It's kind of like price wars in other industries that come out of nowhere.
Getting away from the market giants, there are a number of viable models that can and will work. Ones that I can currently think of are:
a) companies that are essentially in another industry that is not directly tied to software can collaborate with other companies in the same or other industries to produce open software that will benifit everyone.
example: I prototype a particular java library that is part of a bigger picture in my company. The resources involved in creating this library would be a large drain on project budget. I come up with the idea to make this a community project and talk with friends in other companies (or a less organized community at large). We decide that we can split costs by collaborating on producing all the parts of this library (as well as qa). We GPL this product because it is not part of our bigger software or solution model.
I would also note that I get flak because our traditional model is to monopolize anything and everything our employees produce. I eventually convince management that this is a positive symbiotic relationship.
b) one company comes up with an idea for a standardized format or protocol, but needs industry support for it to be successful
example: Livepicture Inc conceives the flashpix format. It works with Microsoft corp, HP, and Eastman/Kodak to produce this image format. It then donates this format to the DIG.
c) traditional service/support model based around open source software
example: i produce a high level language to help produce ISAPI or NSAPI modules. I completely open source this software but rely on support and maintenance for revenue. I also collect bug reports and fixes from the community because they have access to the code.
d) completely open software except a couple of restrictions
example: PHP. It's completely open except for the zend engine -- which is limited in that you can not use it in *other* proprietary products. You can, however use PHP wherever you want as long as it is still PHP
e) open source software that is limited in that changes must come back to the company of creation. They own all changes.
example: SCSL. Many companies wish only to use a language, application, or protocol. They do not wish to commercially gain from it. Now that they have the source, they can work it to their own ends.
f) temporarily proprietary software
example: Mysql. They have a delayed release model. They release their software under the GPL (if I'm not mistaken) when there is a sufficiently better proprietary product available. This way they can retain their advantage, but still release usable code to the public.
g) for fun or coding in free time
example: half the stuff on freshmeat?:) A lot of projects would not be possible without community input and work. We can all produce a product that *we* want without having to worry about commercial viability. We're directly fulfilling a need, usually without the exchange of money. This is very efficient.
h) academia, research sectors, or R&d at large companies
example: framework, pre commercial, standards based, or commercially unviable software
I'd like to hear any other examples if anyone has any;).
Beating and raping means infringing on someone elses rights. Licenses such as the BSD license ensure that which comes from each developer belongs to them. There are a number of converse metaphorical arguments that I could present to nullify your story. I won't because they are inherently flawed. Imagery is flawed in that can only explain simple situations.
When will people learn. Choosing a license is purely situational. YOU choose what YOU want. If you want to restrict how people use your license, do so. If you want to BSD, GPL, Artistic License, proprietorize or partially open -- do whatever the hell you want. It's your code.
Since I need to leave on a ski trip now, I won't think up a bunch of situational examples providing good uses for each and every license there is. The reason why so many exist is because there is no perfect or right license.
Please, just don't be a tool for someone elses agenda. Make sure that agenda meets your own first..
The GPL can better be defined as open source. What you do with the code is limited by a number of restrictions.
The GPL license believes in enforced community where you must give back your changes. You do not own the code The community does.
The BSD license relies on the possibility that some may return code because they will realize that if they give back, someone else will and the product will become better. It also recognizes that time is money and you may want to get paid for the extension of that code, through a proprietary offering. Each programmer owns his or her code. Despite that extension of the code becoming proprietary (or not, if they want), the original is still free.
What I do believe is that no license is better than another. Each has a particular purpose and mindset behind it. Use whichever meets your goals.
Yeah really. He failed to mention that not all software is written to directly make profit. There are many, many industries where collaboration in developing software will not hurt the bottom line or increase competition due to open business practices.
You miss the point. The original source will always remain open. The can never slap a lock on the code because when they fork the code, it is not the original code anymore -- unless they want to give back to the community.
BSD coders encourage the use of their code in commercial products.
This has been proven time and time again with BSD OS's, apache, X and a ton of other products.
Oh, and your argument that hype will kill them is as absurd as Microsofts Linux myths page killing off linux.
All I know is that entertainment does not have to be over-analyzed to death. I frequently read reviews at www.film.com that completely miss the point that some movies are meant to be mindless entertainment and should be treated so.
Please name some features that KDE has that do not work on BSD. I use KDE on my primary desktop and have not run into any problems whatsoever. I had to change maybe 4 lines in a Makefile to get Kdevelop working and all of base kde works perfectly.
The one and only thing I did notice that was not working was the computer info page which is based on the linux proc setup which is not similar at all to the BSD equivalent.
Slashdot Mirror
They will get their day in court and we will see. New technology sometimes makes for logical changes in law that allow for innovation instead of protectionism.
The main argument seems to be that we are able to produce our own copies of music, but other companies are not allowed to produce copies of the music for listening even if it is verified.
Apparently the RIAA is afraid of certain security problems with the my.MP3.com (well that and monopolizing all music).
Because the RIAA is more interested in litigating and monopolizing than real innovation.
What they don't get is that their current model does not work in a world where we are increasingly getting away from music distribution as a tangible product that you can hold in your hand.
I have never tried my.mp3.com. Can anyone tell me if you can give out your password or something and allow anyone to listen to your CD's simultaneously? If that is possible, I would say that they do have some merit. In fact, it just eliminates the entire ripping process for those that want to listen to music on their computer..
It's interesting though. It brings to light some facets of the internet that are uncontrollable. People mirroring and posting code like this as an act of civil disobedience can not be stopped. All they can do is sue the larger bodies involved to try and recover "damages".
(whether I support this particular cause or not is besides the point)
He is only a symptom of a greater problem which is another story for another day.
His dreams, at least after attaining a sufficient amount of income to live indefinitely in security, were to attain a level of power and force his way of thinking on others. This is why he often states that Microsoft must be free to innovate. His delusion is that he is a demi-god shaping the future for a common good.
He could call it quits any time and be swimming in money forever. Therefore I can only assume that motive.
I never stated a complete lack of anything. Hopefully he will also keep true to his claim that upon his death, almost all of his money will be divested to chosen charities.
Did you want me to restate it 100 times fast for you? Is your mind incapable of understanding?
"This guy is one of society's role models"
Isn't it just great how hedonistic beliefs ultimately prevail in american society? Bill Gates may be a brilliant businessman, but he is blind or chooses to be blind regarding many social and ethical issues. I guess this is what society worships.
I'd rather die than be Bill Gates.
"In the land of the blind the one eyed man is king"
I see where you're coming from. I often get a kick out of the supposition and blatantly stupid dogma in some slashdot posts. I happen to enjoy heated discussions though. They often end in at least one party learning something (hopefully).
Anyway, your thoughts do provoke a renewed awareness in possible "special interest" anonymous cowards. I absolutely hate those that use AC to misrepresent themselves to deflect or blow smoke.
Here's my view (correct me if I'm wrong or your point differs):
Advertisers get more bang for their buck. Networks get nothing. I think that allowing this company to freely rebroadcast is a slippery slope. If anyone can rebroadcast, they have no internal method of determining how much to charge advertisers -- and they therefore lose money.
"One can invariable guess the smartness of a coder by his lack of arrogant hostility towards others."
Yes, in my experience, those that knew what they were talking about did not yell or scream or grumble about not doing things their way. They intelligently explain why we should do a process their way, and we take value in their explanation.
Those that are often rigid, are also often frightened by the fact that their lack of knowledge does not allow them to modify their work flow to the needs of those around them.
I have on occasion met brilliant programmers who are unable to work in teams and are convinced that everyone around them is a complete idiot (which is often relatively true). I just take this for lack of emotional development or too much focus on a goal.
What I do not have, is respect for those that whine, and kick, and scream instead of trying to change or get both parties to partially compromise to achieve a goal. Intelligent communication is the medium in which this is done. You do not have to become passive to move away from hostility.
I think your post is flawed. I think your metaphor is flawed. No one is overdoing tolerance. We are seeking balance.
I do not blindly support the status quo. I do not blindly support hidden agendas or propaganda. I do not blindly support open source.
When I post, I post my own thoughts. If someone replies and I do not see where they are coming from - I reply and ask, or provide a contrary argument.
I agree that sometimes there is too much value put into arguments converse to the flow of a story or a post. However, since anyone can reply to these comments, the integrity of the forum is not subverted.
The key word in the post that you replied to was intelligent and thoughtful. If you question the moderations as well as the posts validity, why not reply to try and nullify the argument with intelligent and thoughtful posts of your own.
Yep, good ones.
What I do find bad is the lack of typical end user applications. Most X applications on freshmeat typically fulfill specific goals of those developing the product. This does not always meet the needs of typical end users who need an easier to use UI or documentation legible to the average computer user.
Even free applications on www.winfiles.com are usually more user friendly (as well as shareware). Also, since many are recreational projects, they never get close to their commercial alternatives.
Hopefully this problem will be rectified - either by the big boys moving in and making Linux accessible to the normal user in their interest - or benificial standards agreed upon by an initiative interested in making it accessible.
If Linux becomes successful enough, we might even see many commercial applications that cater to the end user such as easy to use image editors (I'm talking good UI and easy process hand holding), and just about everything broderbund, sierra and others develop. I am not convinced that it is possible for these particular categories to be open sourced because recreational projects really usually do not go into every possible detail and take the time to effectively plan except for their own use. They also usually are working to fulfill their own goals for a program and not providing a solution to others problems for compensation.
In short, I think it's because those who have input in the program are generally working to fulfill the goals of the community that is contributing.
I completely agree with you on the fact that open source software will work in just about every situation. I do, however, have an objection to the GPL being good in all situations. Here are two examples;
---
1) It makes for almost perfect competition. Therefore it is only suitable for glue or base framework to your business model. The only way around this is to keep your changes completely internal.
The converse argument would be to look at companies such as RHAT. I believe this to be invalid because:
a) Operating Systems is a very wide market. Therefore it does not apply to most software.
b) There's no way in hell they can get a traditional software company profit margin, unless they provide value added closed source or complete solutions.
2) There are some really stupid limits on commercial extension. The LGPL fixes this.
---
There are some other arguments against open source in general as well:
---
1) Some large projects take substantial resources to maintain and extend. There are a lot of projects that do not begin and end after a program meets specifications. Under open source, the customer has the right to fire you and have someone else extend the product, possibly putting you out in the cold. This can be especially hard on companies who have built reliance on their customers and/or want to expand their business. The problem is magnified many times if the market for your product is limited to only a few potential customers. Therefore, you have to be very careful with your contract (if you even have one, ha).
In the end, it is more efficient. However, it might not be in my best interest. If anyone can come along and underbid my contract and take over the work I had been doing, I might think twice.
2) The goodwill of humans can't be taken for granted in business. If I use a personally made toolkit to make a variety of applications, I do not want others using that commercially. Someone may use my code in other applications without asking. To fix the problem, I can restrict use of certain code, and in the event of violation, litigate. Another solution is to LGPL parts of the code to enforce return on modification.
--
Anyway, I want to ensure myself a healthy return while being efficient for my customers as well. What I do not want is to make my work a commodity that is easily duplicated.
I forgot to ask in my previous comment if you are one of the developers responsible for the screwup at xing? :-)
"I work for a company that produces software DVD players for 9x/NT"
So do I.
"We determined that it would not be viable at this time because:"
Same here. Except for different reasons. Number one is paranoia of management. Number two is lack of experienced people to actually do the porting. Number three being that we would have to overhaul our tech support staff and systems to include linux. Number 4 and last being market size, as you had already stated.
"b) the linux community is generally open source oriented. We predicted that piracy would be more prevalent"
That's a stupid comment to make. Any commercial software that people like will be pirated to some degree. Just keep the price within reasonable limits, and you might reach better economies of scale.
"c) constantly changing systems that would be hard to support"
Yep, we've been monitoring for profit closed source software developers such as Lokisoft for a while. The cycle of change is slower than you think.
"There are also potential technical support nightmares helping new linux users through a non-standardized system."
Yes this is true. Although, you can take the stance of only supporting more prevalent distributions. Even IBM does this.
"There is potential in the future -- but I don't see it being soon"
Just wait for XFree86 4.0 and specialized multimedia interfaces. They will be here soon.
andrsn@stanford.edu
She helps many, many people in #freebsd on irc , how-to's, newbie help scripts, and mailing lists. She has also been doing this for a couple of years.
"Of course, a fat Internet pipe is a prerequisite: even with my 5Mbps ADSL line, the installation took the best part of the day"
..."
/boot. Although, I do not see why he would want to screw with this given he didn't even want to do a custom install.
I'm guessing he must have used ftp.cdrom.com, because I install off the mit and virginia tech mirrors in about 30 minutes.
"I'm accustomed to
He states his bias at least. It would, however, be better if he looked at the setup from a perspective accepting change.
It also seems that he failed to look at the handbook or read the mailing list archives -- because his problems would have been easily avoided if he had done so.
When I first used freebsd 2.1, I actually read the documentation and did not run into any major problems. I also had never used *nix, except basic commands on SunOS and hp/ux. In about a week, I knew everything I needed to know to run the system, and in two I was cvsupping and doing make world (though I did run into some compiling errors from time to time).
He then goes on to mention the lack of journalling, but never mentions softupdates. He then mentions the lack of commercial support. This is true -- however, he fails to mention the wealth of information in the mailing list archives, handbook and better written man pages. I have never run into a problem that was not fixed by searching the mailing list archives, except when it was a problem with current -- which meant I had to ask on the current mailing lists.
One valid point he does make, is the lack of documentation on
"I was longing for a package management system along the lines of Red Hat's RPM that would have done the job in five minutes"
I guess he never heard of sysinstall packages or upgrade. He could have gotten the latest binaries through this process without wasting his time compiling.
The only thing that I see lacking is version control in pkg_add and pkg_delete. Even then, all you have to do is delete and then readd. pkg_delete usually does not delete the renamed files -- since it usually installs blah.conf.sample or whatever. It's up to you to figure out the differences and move the configs over. To me this is far more elegant than not knowing what exactly is being done. Though, the end user probably wouldn't agree.
It's an ok article -- except for the fact that he is writing it from a biased perspective.
Yes, but the real question is if this is a sustainable business model. If forced to provide all changes to your product, competition will flourish and this sector of the market as a whole will reach a point of diminishing returns -- from which some will leave market and others will join -- producing a cycle that is not very good in the eyes of the shareholder.
:) A lot of projects would not be possible without community input and work. We can all produce a product that *we* want without having to worry about commercial viability. We're directly fulfilling a need, usually without the exchange of money. This is very efficient.
;).
However, the hype surrounding linux has also brought proprietary software built around that free software. This model is possibly sustainable if handled properly due to at least temporary product differentiation. If you offer product differentiation that fulfills a market need that free software does not, then you can likely become profitable.
Unfortunately, this model is not similar to the proprietary model that microsoft runs. Therefore, the market capitalization surrounding these companies is almost completely based on hype. Why? Because this new model relies on support, service, and partially proprietary extensions -- and these industries do not have large profit margins.
Companies such as VA Linux offer very little product or service differentiation in their own specialization. If they can move more towards producing real solutions, they can become a solid player. This sector of the industry is growing at an exponential pace, and there seems to be room for many. They will, however, have to compete with the likes of IBM who have used their past reputation and power of brand name to partially reinvent themselves in this changing market.
SGI, at a glance, seems to be the victim of a few very large long term strategic planning mistakes. In my opinion, if they can provide sufficient product differentiation and added value to forego the recently commodified pc market, or cater specifically to the high end and niche markets, they have a very good future.
Again, those last three giants aren't even specifically in the free software market. They are only leveraging its hype due to the me-too effect. It's kind of like price wars in other industries that come out of nowhere.
Getting away from the market giants, there are a number of viable models that can and will work. Ones that I can currently think of are:
a) companies that are essentially in another industry that is not directly tied to software can collaborate with other companies in the same or other industries to produce open software that will benifit everyone.
example: I prototype a particular java library that is part of a bigger picture in my company. The resources involved in creating this library would be a large drain on project budget. I come up with the idea to make this a community project and talk with friends in other companies (or a less organized community at large). We decide that we can split costs by collaborating on producing all the parts of this library (as well as qa). We GPL this product because it is not part of our bigger software or solution model.
I would also note that I get flak because our traditional model is to monopolize anything and everything our employees produce. I eventually convince management that this is a positive symbiotic relationship.
b) one company comes up with an idea for a standardized format or protocol, but needs industry support for it to be successful
example: Livepicture Inc conceives the flashpix format. It works with Microsoft corp, HP, and Eastman/Kodak to produce this image format. It then donates this format to the DIG.
c) traditional service/support model based around open source software
example: i produce a high level language to help produce ISAPI or NSAPI modules. I completely open source this software but rely on support and maintenance for revenue. I also collect bug reports and fixes from the community because they have access to the code.
d) completely open software except a couple of restrictions
example: PHP. It's completely open except for the zend engine -- which is limited in that you can not use it in *other* proprietary products. You can, however use PHP wherever you want as long as it is still PHP
e) open source software that is limited in that changes must come back to the company of creation. They own all changes.
example: SCSL. Many companies wish only to use a language, application, or protocol. They do not wish to commercially gain from it. Now that they have the source, they can work it to their own ends.
f) temporarily proprietary software
example: Mysql. They have a delayed release model. They release their software under the GPL (if I'm not mistaken) when there is a sufficiently better proprietary product available. This way they can retain their advantage, but still release usable code to the public.
g) for fun or coding in free time
example: half the stuff on freshmeat?
h) academia, research sectors, or R&d at large companies
example: framework, pre commercial, standards based, or commercially unviable software
I'd like to hear any other examples if anyone has any
Beating and raping means infringing on someone elses rights. Licenses such as the BSD license ensure that which comes from each developer belongs to them. There are a number of converse metaphorical arguments that I could present to nullify your story. I won't because they are inherently flawed. Imagery is flawed in that can only explain simple situations.
When will people learn. Choosing a license is purely situational. YOU choose what YOU want. If you want to restrict how people use your license, do so. If you want to BSD, GPL, Artistic License, proprietorize or partially open -- do whatever the hell you want. It's your code.
Since I need to leave on a ski trip now, I won't think up a bunch of situational examples providing good uses for each and every license there is. The reason why so many exist is because there is no perfect or right license.
Please, just don't be a tool for someone elses agenda. Make sure that agenda meets your own first..
The BSD license is free. period.
The GPL can better be defined as open source. What you do with the code is limited by a number of restrictions.
The GPL license believes in enforced community where you must give back your changes. You do not own the code The community does.
The BSD license relies on the possibility that some may return code because they will realize that if they give back, someone else will and the product will become better. It also recognizes that time is money and you may want to get paid for the extension of that code, through a proprietary offering. Each programmer owns his or her code. Despite that extension of the code becoming proprietary (or not, if they want), the original is still free.
What I do believe is that no license is better than another. Each has a particular purpose and mindset behind it. Use whichever meets your goals.
Yeah really. He failed to mention that not all software is written to directly make profit. There are many, many industries where collaboration in developing software will not hurt the bottom line or increase competition due to open business practices.
You miss the point. The original source will always remain open. The can never slap a lock on the code because when they fork the code, it is not the original code anymore -- unless they want to give back to the community.
BSD coders encourage the use of their code in commercial products.
This has been proven time and time again with BSD OS's, apache, X and a ton of other products.
Oh, and your argument that hype will kill them is as absurd as Microsofts Linux myths page killing off linux.
All I know is that entertainment does not have to be over-analyzed to death. I frequently read reviews at www.film.com that completely miss the point that some movies are meant to be mindless entertainment and should be treated so.
Interesting,
If i have time tommorow or thursday, I may look into this problem and submit a patch for the port or just give a heads up to the maintainer..
Please name some features that KDE has that do not work on BSD. I use KDE on my primary desktop and have not run into any problems whatsoever. I had to change maybe 4 lines in a Makefile to get Kdevelop working and all of base kde works perfectly.
The one and only thing I did notice that was not working was the computer info page which is based on the linux proc setup which is not similar at all to the BSD equivalent.