Operating Systems > Linux and UNIX
gnu=borg - discuss
solo:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jonez ---But you don't make fuck all if all your profit has gone to someone else who has used your code for their gain.
--- End quote ---
The GPL legally protects the source code from being used in a non-GPL compatible project. You always keep your own copyright on your source and nothing the GPL says can ever change that ever. You always have the option of rereleasing your code under a different license if you see fit.
--- Quote ---
And yes more money needs to be made than just enough to cover the packaging and programmers, more is needed to be invested to get more programmers on the job and you can choose the programmers and since you've made more money you can aford better coders too.
--- End quote ---
The open source business model is more complex than just getting money for the packaging. Redhat barely sells any physical products. It's about the services which surround the open source product as well as proprietary additions when possible (LGPL, BSD)
--- Quote ---
Brilliant, shame about loosing all your customers to Redhat, too bad.
--- End quote ---
Funny you should mention Redhat :)
--- Quote ---
Version of the program, suppose your next version is better than Redhat's but theirs sells more because thier marketing strategy is better.
--- End quote ---
Oh no! That's a business mistake, has nothing to do with the GPL.
--- Quote ---
Too bad if it's shitt, anyway if you can't beat them then join them.
--- End quote ---
When the hell has "if you can't beat them join them" been primary? When Netscape couldn't beat Microsoft, they joined them? no. When IBM couldn't beat Microsoft, join them? no. We just keep fighting.
--- Quote ---
Think about it, the GPL removes the right for you keep your code private and not share it.
--- End quote ---
Wrong! The GPL protects the rights of the original copyright holder when the code is modified and binaries are redistributed. When no redistribution is involved, the license doesn't even go into effect. And if you make your code GPL, you can change it at anytime if you own 100% of the copyright.
--- Quote ---
Oh yes it does if they have to pay
--- End quote ---
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: solo ---The GPL legally protects the source code from being used in a non-GPL compatible project.
--- End quote ---
I was refering to another company using my code and creating a competing product licencend under the GPL. If I hadn't GPL'd the code in the first place they'd have to start from srcatch, they wouldn't have the head start of haiving acess to my code.
--- Quote from: solo --- You always keep your own copyright on your source and nothing the GPL says can ever change that ever. You always have the option of rereleasing your code under a different license if you see fit.
--- End quote ---
I understand this, Sun have done this by releasing Star Office under a proprietary licence and OpenOffice under the GPL.
--- Quote from: solo ---The open source business model is more complex than just getting money for the packaging. Redhat barely sells any physical products. It's about the services which surround the open source product
--- End quote ---
I've already mentioned this please read the last paragraph of my previous post.
--- Quote from: solo --- as well as proprietary additions when possible (LGPL, BSD)
--- End quote ---
So is some of the software in their distrobution proprietary too? Wow they're fucking evil!
--- Quote from: solo ---Oh no! That's a business mistake, has nothing to do with the GPL.
--- End quote ---
The "business mistake" was releasing the source code thus allowing the competitor to develop their own version, even though it was shitty they made it sell more than I did because of thier stronger marketing policy.
--- Quote from: solo ---When the hell has "if you can't beat them join them" been primary? When Netscape couldn't beat Microsoft, they joined them? no. When IBM couldn't beat Microsoft, join them? no. We just keep fighting.
--- End quote ---
Well I woudn't be in the situation I'm in if I'd kept the source secret in the first place.
--- Quote from: solo ---Wrong! The GPL protects the rights of the original copyright holder when the code is modified and binaries are redistributed. When no redistribution is involved, the license doesn't even go into effect. And if you make your code GPL, you can change it at anytime if you own 100% of the copyright.
--- End quote ---
I understand this Sun Star Office OpenOffice again.
However what if I didn't want to be like Sun, I've GPL'd my program, now I want to create a proprietary version, but there will still be the source code from the previous release scattered all over the Internet. I can't just order people to distroy their copies of the source code can I?
--- Quote from: solo ---Wrong again. GPL does not require you to provide working binaries, it only requires you to provide source code. A lot of distributions make money by providing a good distro in binaries for sale but only providing individual source RPMs to fulfill the source requirements for the GPL.
--- End quote ---
Where did I say anything about binaries? People can compile it themselves. My point still remains valid, under the proprietary licence they had to pay me to use my software and under the GPL they don't owe me a penny.
Could I release the binaries under a proprietary licence? I should be able to do that if I own the copyright, but it'd only apply to the binaries themselves, so someone elese could just compile it and stick it on thier website so I still gain
Jenda:
--- Quote from: Aloone_Jones ---
Well there you go, the GPL isn't suitable for good honest and hard working people who want to keep their hardwork to themselves and prevent other people from hijacking it for their own gain.
--- End quote ---
For their own GAIN??? What gain do THEY have, if you say that you yourself do not have any gain.
Count me out from this thread.
My last words: I do agree with you that programmers that publish their SW as proprietary do not deserve the gallows. I only think that in a world that automatically supposes a SW licence to be GPL (or a perfected version thereof + none other exists) would be a lot better to live in.
Aloone_Jonez:
--- Quote from: Jenda ---For their own GAIN???
--- End quote ---
I meant to make money.
--- Quote from: Jenda ---What gain do THEY have, if you say that you yourself do not have any gain.
--- End quote ---
In my opinion the GPL isn't as gooder licence for making a profit as a proprietary licence, and Adobe, Microsoft and Apple have proved this as they're all worth more than any Linux company.
--- Quote from: Jenda ---Count me out from this thread.
--- End quote ---
I fear this thread will burst into flames in the end - the free software vs proprietary software debate always does at some point. Until then I'll stick to my point, I'm not trying to convince the people I'm disagreeing with, my motive is to prove a point to on lookers who are not actively involved and let them make up thier own minds.
--- Quote from: Jenda ---My last words: I do agree with you that programmers that publish their SW as proprietary do not deserve the gallows. I only think that in a world that automatically supposes a SW licence to be GPL (or a perfected version thereof + none other exists) would be a lot better to live in.
--- End quote ---
In that respect I agree with this vision of everyone sharing everything, but we live in the real word where companies have to compete with each other and keep their ideas secret from each other in order to do so, and no they're not evil for doing so.
Aloone_Jonez:
From, this post in the another thread.
--- Quote from: solo ---
Microsoft is gonna be gone, if not by the hands of us, then by the hands of Apple, who is only getting more powerful.
--- End quote ---
How would we be better of with Apple in a monopoly position, another company out to make money and doesn't just own the OS but also the hardware?
--- Quote from: solo ---What I'm saying is Microsoft already made the critical mistake. They already gave us a way to get a piece of the dotnet cake. Even if they introduce new APIs (they are with Longhorn) we will still make an open version now that Microsoft gave us the base platform. These Longhorn Linux APIs don't have to be centralized: they can be optional and available when needed by a Longhorn .NET app is run on Linux.
--- End quote ---
Thank you, you've just explained for me why it's bad for most companies to release their code under the GPL, they've made the same business mistake as I have in the hypothetical senario I was talking about earlier on.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version