Headline FeedsLinuxInsider Talkback
|
|
Re: Free Software Shouldn't Mean You Can't Make a Buck
Posted by: Jeremiah T. Gray 2008-09-18 08:17:30
See Full Story
Richard Stallman, the founder of the GNU Project, speaks at great lengths about preserving the ideological purity of free software, and in his vision of the future, computer software development is modeled after mathematics and science research, where all research and development is open. So far as Stallman is concerned, proprietary software production is unethical and should be avoided. As he detailed extensively in The GNU Manifesto, traditional closed source capitalism should be rejected in software development and replaced with a post-scarcity economy.
GPL is so popular because it is so business friendly
Posted by: seanlynch 2008-09-18 11:10:55 In reply to: Jeremiah T. Gray
The GPL is extremely friendly to businesses looking to generate profit from software. Section 4 of GPL V.3 clearly states:
"You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee."
That's right, you can charge any price!
So if a business writes code and owns the copyright to it and distributes it under GPL, they get to charge as much as they want. If they are using GPL software that is owned by another copyright holder, they have been given license by the copyright holder to charge as much as they want.
Since each downstream re-distributer must also GPL any improvements and bug fixes, the entire software stack gets the benefits of improvements and enhancements for a lower cost than the old high cost proprietary models.
With BSD licensing downstream distributors may close source enhancements and fixes depriving other users from the benefits of economies of scale. The wheel must be continually re-invented. Who knows what improvements Microsoft has made to the BSD TCP/IP stack? Or Apple has made to the Mach kernel?
Perhaps some other closed source company that used BSD had already made these improvements. Think of the money that Microsoft or Apple could have saved by not being forced to re-invent the wheel! Apple and Microsoft investors are both doing OK, but they could have been doing even better!
GPL is very business friendly.
Remember it is called 'Free' Software, but that is 'Free' as in 'Free' Enterprise, not as in 'Free' Beer.
"You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee."
That's right, you can charge any price!
So if a business writes code and owns the copyright to it and distributes it under GPL, they get to charge as much as they want. If they are using GPL software that is owned by another copyright holder, they have been given license by the copyright holder to charge as much as they want.
Since each downstream re-distributer must also GPL any improvements and bug fixes, the entire software stack gets the benefits of improvements and enhancements for a lower cost than the old high cost proprietary models.
With BSD licensing downstream distributors may close source enhancements and fixes depriving other users from the benefits of economies of scale. The wheel must be continually re-invented. Who knows what improvements Microsoft has made to the BSD TCP/IP stack? Or Apple has made to the Mach kernel?
Perhaps some other closed source company that used BSD had already made these improvements. Think of the money that Microsoft or Apple could have saved by not being forced to re-invent the wheel! Apple and Microsoft investors are both doing OK, but they could have been doing even better!
GPL is very business friendly.
Remember it is called 'Free' Software, but that is 'Free' as in 'Free' Enterprise, not as in 'Free' Beer.
Linux is based on the concept of free software. Many of the linux users have had the experiance of the purchased software utopia called windows and apple. Not only do people have to purchase the software license, once purchased, the users have to remember the product password code, have to allow DRM and active-x so the the software companies can insure that the honest users are not thieves. Programmers in the Linux communities believe that almost all malware enters a computer by exploiting DRM and Active-X vulnerbilities.In summnation I now use Ubuntu Linux and spend my time using the computer instead of running malware maintanance and recovering from trojan attacks. Microsoft for a year called me a thief and would't update my system because of it's DRM's; finally after a year Microsoft decided that I wasn't a thief and started updating my windows system. Being a refugee from Windows I have had enough of it's DRM's and Active-X, which come with paid software licenses. Note the software is licensed, not owned.
