I find it just a little ironic that companies are belly-aching about how a viable business model cannot be built around GPL'd code.
It seems to me that an organization like the Free Software Foundation did not create the GPL in order for corporations to make money. From the FSF webpage, "the Free Software Foundation concentrates on development of new free software---and on making that software into a coherent system which can eliminate the need to use proprietary software." In the FSF's words, "proprietary" means software that is not free. So, the GPL is a license created to foster the development of free software, which is not necessarily conducive to profitable business models.
Microsoft's and Caldera's mistake: assuming that a company cannot build itself around GPL'd code. At face value, I have argued this to be true. However, the support and services market is far more profitable. Therefore, I would argue that a company can be profitable by marketing support and services for their free software. In that way, it should be possible to build a viable business model around GPL'd code.
(Fruitless M$ slam: Microsoft would rather do both: charge you for unrefined software, then charge you to get support for their bugs)
IBM is a large contributor to open source products. Their ROI? Marketable experience and the reputation as a supporter of free and open source software. I'm sure someone else could come up with more examples of companies that are able to be profitable from GPL'd code. So, when you do pay for something, pay someone who is going to give back to the community.
A unique identifier would be nice for ops on a channel. Then you could ban based on address, nickname, or unique identifier.
However, for that to work the number would have to be uniquely assigned to you. So much for anonymity, vis-a-vis Pentium III.
IIRC, a patent or trademark holds only if the owning entity enforces it. So, this isn't so much about what they want to gain. It is more about protecting what they worked hard to create. While it is an extreme example, I would shoot someone for entering my home and trying to steal my property. Wouldn't you work hard to protect your belongings? Besides, if they don't enforce their trademarks, then anyone may (legally) use them. Kleenex anyone?
And yes, I know I need to go to sleep. Get off my back. Quit staring at me like that. It's bad enough I have to go back to my NT shop tomorrow. Ahhhhhh, crap.
You know it's becoming more and more apparent that the folks who are writing in with their gripes about Macs, PC's and whatever else are generally full of it. You've got the same guys writing in every damned time there's a platform related topic (especially when it's a Macintosh topic and never when it's a Linux topic). And the line is always the same.
Example: Mr. Joe says the Cray T90 is good.
Response: You know, I went out and got 2 of those Cray T90's and put it up against my PentiumIII/K-6 and blah blah blah it's soooo slow blah blah Cray sucks.
Well good for you. You certainly convinced me. I will probably throw out all of my existing equipment and buy your exact rack, how's that? Ever heard of slowing the progress of computing? Well guess what, you're engaging in it daily and at an astounding rate. Hell, you've even got me doing it too! So I'll end this and beg. Please shut up. Please don't bitch about these things. Don't like it? Don't use it. Broken? Fine, you fix it, smart ass. Damn.
Slashdot Mirror
I find it just a little ironic that companies are belly-aching about how a viable business model cannot be built around GPL'd code.
It seems to me that an organization like the Free Software Foundation did not create the GPL in order for corporations to make money. From the FSF webpage, "the Free Software Foundation concentrates on development of new free software---and on making that software into a coherent system which can eliminate the need to use proprietary software." In the FSF's words, "proprietary" means software that is not free. So, the GPL is a license created to foster the development of free software, which is not necessarily conducive to profitable business models.
Microsoft's and Caldera's mistake: assuming that a company cannot build itself around GPL'd code. At face value, I have argued this to be true. However, the support and services market is far more profitable. Therefore, I would argue that a company can be profitable by marketing support and services for their free software. In that way, it should be possible to build a viable business model around GPL'd code.
(Fruitless M$ slam: Microsoft would rather do both: charge you for unrefined software, then charge you to get support for their bugs)
IBM is a large contributor to open source products. Their ROI? Marketable experience and the reputation as a supporter of free and open source software. I'm sure someone else could come up with more examples of companies that are able to be profitable from GPL'd code. So, when you do pay for something, pay someone who is going to give back to the community.
A unique identifier would be nice for ops on a channel. Then you could ban based on address, nickname, or unique identifier.
However, for that to work the number would have to be uniquely assigned to you. So much for anonymity, vis-a-vis Pentium III.
IIRC, a patent or trademark holds only if the owning entity enforces it. So, this isn't so much about what they want to gain. It is more about protecting what they worked hard to create. While it is an extreme example, I would shoot someone for entering my home and trying to steal my property. Wouldn't you work hard to protect your belongings? Besides, if they don't enforce their trademarks, then anyone may (legally) use them. Kleenex anyone?
And yes, I know I need to go to sleep. Get off my back. Quit staring at me like that. It's bad enough I have to go back to my NT shop tomorrow. Ahhhhhh, crap.
-Pharaoh
Hi, payasos.
You know it's becoming more and more apparent that the folks who are writing in with their gripes about Macs, PC's and whatever else are generally full of it. You've got the same guys writing in every damned time there's a platform related topic (especially when it's a Macintosh topic and never when it's a Linux topic). And the line is always the same.
Example: Mr. Joe says the Cray T90 is good.
Response: You know, I went out and got 2 of those Cray T90's and put it up against my PentiumIII/K-6 and blah blah blah it's soooo slow blah blah Cray sucks.
Well good for you. You certainly convinced me. I will probably throw out all of my existing equipment and buy your exact rack, how's that? Ever heard of slowing the progress of computing? Well guess what, you're engaging in it daily and at an astounding rate. Hell, you've even got me doing it too! So I'll end this and beg. Please shut up. Please don't bitch about these things. Don't like it? Don't use it. Broken? Fine, you fix it, smart ass. Damn.
-Pharaoh