'GPL encumbrance problems'

[David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud)]

lesmikesell at gmail.com wrote:

>On Thu, 2006-01-19 at 15:23, David G. Miller (aka DaveAtFraud) wrote:
>
>  
>
>>> I really do see a need for a GPL-like restriction on creating true 
>>> derivative works based on free software created by others.  I think the 
>>> success of GPLed software in attracting developers shows that people are 
>>> more willing to donate their time and effort if they know that someone 
>>> else can't simply pick up whatever they have created, re-package it 
>>> somehow and sell it.
>>    
>>
>
>That makes much more sense in the world of packagers selling
>bundles and support than it does to a developer willing to give
>his work away.  If you give something away, why wouldn't you
>want it to be used in every possible way that is useful to
>someone (more or less the *bsd philosophy)?  On the other
>hand if you are selling support of you have a vested interest
>in keeping something better than your own package from
>becoming easily available.
>
> -- Les Mikesell
>
Everyone has their own motivations and neither altruism nor direct 
compensation are necessarily one of them.  I'm a fairly rabid Randian 
capitalist so, if I choose to give something away, I'll do it in a way 
that is in my own best interest.  At the moment, I'm currently between 
jobs so I may choose to contribute to a FLOSS project based solely on 
the technologies I'll get a chance to learn regardless of the license (I 
also won't pretend that my choosing to give something away somehow gives 
me an authority to insist that others do the same but that's a different 
argument in this thread).  On the other hand, lots of people who 
contribute to FLOSS seem to be at least partially motivated by altruism 
and part of their "charge" for their contribution is to not let someone 
else make money by simply repackaging their contribution.  I'm just 
pointing out that this seems to work by attracting developers to GPLed 
projects; not that it is what I would do.

In the for what its worth department, most of my background is in 
developing large scale custom software for specific customers or for a 
fairly limited clientele.  By large, I mean upward of from 50 or 100 
developers working over a couple of years to develop say the tracking 
software for a radar system, an air defense management system, a combat 
logistics management system, delivering maintenance data to airlines, 
developing specialized network monitoring software for businesses, etc.  
None of this software is mass market and there is generally a *very* 
steep learning curve involved in its development.  Thus, it would not 
get written unless a customer who needed it and who could afford it 
funded the effort. 

Bringing this post back to the original topic of this thread, I see some 
of the folks who complain about the possible viral nature of the GPL 
being in this same situation.  That is, they bring some very specific, 
hard earned knowledge about a problem domain to the table and they want 
to be compensated for the effort it took to learn what they have.  If 
they aren't compensated for this effort then they may choose to take 
their knowledge elsewhere where they will be compensated for it or move 
to some new endeavor that will better compensate them.  Like the above 
examples, this may mean that something that would have been available at 
a price is, instead, not available at all.

Lots of people see only the "mass market" desktop and consumer markets 
for software which gives them a very unrealistic perspective on software 
development.  By number of users they may have a point but the dollar 
value of the custom and limited distribution software market is huge.  
This market is highly competitive and competitive advantages lie in the 
provider's proprietary code base and the knowledge of the problem space 
it represents.  Jo and some of the other posters are just the small fish 
in this ocean of a market but they face the same competitive pressures.  
Trying to force this market to be "open source" won't work and will only 
drive people to platforms where they can protect their knowledge investment.

Cheers,
Dave