Hi,
There's an article in The Times of India (page 23, "No Free lunches for me") by Charles Assisi, who describes himself as "A socialist turned capitalist". He makes an argument about why Free Software will not work in the mainstream market.
His argument is that if he writes something and gives it away to a community, the community is free to improve it and distribute it. But at the same time, he stands to lose his livelihood as he becomes a disposable commodity in the face of the hundreds in the community.
He also cites an example made by RMS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman , just in case ;) ), wherein he had stated that if one doesn't buy a car when he can't open its hood, the same should apply for software too. If one buys software but is not allowed to modify it, improve it then it's simply not enough. Charles says that while that is true in principle, the comparison cannot be made between the two very different industries. The difference here is that while car mechanics may tinker around with cars to repair/enhance them, they simply cannot build one themselves. The same is not true for software as a collective can modify the software beyond recognition. Also, it doesn't increase cost to replicate the software as it does in case of cars, hence in the car industry there is no case for "stealing livelihood" if one could call it that.
Regards,
well, I don't think this is a proper way of thinking about free software. stealing livelyhood! I can't figure out how is that possible. first of all I will like to know how many computer users are programmers? how many will really look at the source code and modify it? and telling them that the source code is available is a big advantage. he knows that the software can be customised. and remember all, the bigust secter of software industry today is customised software. so even if I develop a software tailor made for an x y z company, it wont be a loss for me to give the source code. I have developed for example a very complex software for IIT Mumbai after finishing my research there. I have also given them the source code. now there is one big issue, if the software is to be modified, who knows the source code best? of course my company. so I am always called for when it is to be modified. and second aspect is what Sir Richard Stolman said in the presentation on 27th this month. "if developing a software will need 50000 and if 1000 people are interested, every one only contributes rs 50" so here chances that the customer will bargain comes less because every individual pays only 50. and I think rather free software concept creates more employment opportunities. think about the case. if the source code is free and some third party is not offering good support and taking the customer for a ride, they may perhaps go to some other software consultency (that could be me or you) and give us the contract. now, since the source code is available we have the opportunity to work on it. I hope this will take away all the clowds of uncertainty if any. thanks, Krishnakant.
On 8/31/06, krishnakant Mane researchbase@gmail.com wrote:
I don't think this is a proper way of thinking about free software. stealing livelyhood! I can't figure out how is that possible. first of all I will like to know how many computer users are programmers?
I think he's concerned about forking taking away what could potentially be his income. Also, someone posting his software online and thus nobody needing to buy his solution, again putting him at a disadvantage. This is something that will probably happen in case of a GPLed program/suite.
That is probably why FOSS software is mostly free as in beer too; the *support* is sold for a price. The author of the article doesn't say anything about support, but wants people to pay for every copy they buy; kinda like buying a car.
But then he doesn't have to *manufacture* every copy of the software like one would a car; his efforts go into making just one copy. So how right is it to charge for the subsequent copies for which he spends nil?
and second aspect is what Sir Richard Stolman said in the presentation on 27th this month. "if developing a software will need 50000 and if 1000 people are interested, every one only contributes rs 50" so here chances that the
Yes, and that's another thing the author is concerned about I guess. He's afraid that competition will increase a lot, giving more choice to consumers but decreasing his own income, sometimes due to his own making (by releasing code on a Free license).
Regards,
--- Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
But then he doesn't have to *manufacture* every copy of the software like one would a car; his efforts go into making just one copy. So how right is it to charge for the subsequent copies for which he spends nil?
Perfectly legit and ethical and right. Let him decide how much money he wants to make and what he should charge. Only those who find value will buy it. That is why MRTP and antitrust laws exist to ensure (in theory) that you are not forced to go along with a product/price just because it is the only one available.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On Thursday 31 August 2006 03:59 pm, Abhishek Daga wrote:
--- Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
But then he doesn't have to *manufacture* every copy of the software like one would a car; his efforts go into making just one copy. So how right is it to charge for the subsequent copies for which he spends nil?
Perfectly legit and ethical and right. Let him decide how much money he wants to make and what he should charge. Only those who find value will buy it. That is why MRTP and antitrust laws exist to ensure (in theory) that you are not forced to go along with a product/price just because it is the only one available.
Besides he very convienetly forgets the value of everbody else's contribution - ideas, code, debugging, publicity.
On 8/31/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Besides he very convienetly forgets the value of everbody else's contribution - ideas, code, debugging, publicity.
I think he's complaining that FOSS essentially attacks the idea of software as a *product* which can be sold like a tangible product such as a car, stereo, etc. Businesses thriving on FOSS (Trolltech, RH, Suse, Novell, etc) essentially give away the product for free and charge for the service.
So if FOSS becomes THE mainstream way, the idea of *software product* in the earlier sense (write once, sell many times) will die.
Regards,
On 31-Aug-06, at 5:01 PM, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
So if FOSS becomes THE mainstream way, the idea of *software product* in the earlier sense (write once, sell many times) will die.
not if, when
On Thursday 31 August 2006 05:01 pm, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
On 8/31/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Besides he very convienetly forgets the value of everbody else's contribution - ideas, code, debugging, publicity.
I think he's complaining that FOSS essentially attacks the idea of software as a *product* which can be sold like a tangible product such as a car, stereo, etc. Businesses thriving on FOSS (Trolltech, RH, Suse, Novell, etc) essentially give away the product for free and charge for the service.
So if FOSS becomes THE mainstream way, the idea of *software product* in the earlier sense (write once, sell many times) will die.
It wont IF the software has such unique characteristics that it cannot be duplicated / improved by someone else. Basically sit in a cave and write code that takes care of all variations that your market could possibly demand while ensuring it is bug free and affordable. Games are one such (and again peversely a succesful game will be duplicated). Any thing more serious and the coder is conning himself into believing that he can deliver something useful.
Hi Siddesh,
Quoting Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com:
On 8/31/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Besides he very convienetly forgets the value of everbody else's contribution - ideas, code, debugging, publicity.
I think he's complaining that FOSS essentially attacks the idea of software as a *product* which can be sold like a tangible product such as a car, stereo, etc. Businesses thriving on FOSS (Trolltech, RH, Suse, Novell, etc) essentially give away the product for free and charge for the service.
Trolltech ==> charges Fee for using their QT library in your code. RH ==> Enterprise Linux is not for free. SuSE ==> Enterprise Linux is not for free. Novell ==> Groupware, etc etc are not for free.
So point being they still sell software as product and also charge hefty fee for support, Just that their licensing terms are relaxed. (Similar to Microsoft or any other proprietory vendor does)
I dont find any special difference between the vendors that you suggested as against proprietary software vendors.
Thanks & Regards, Mitul Limbani, Founder & CEO, Enterux Solutions, The Enterprise Linux Company (TM), www.enterux.com
Sometime on Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 07:48:34PM +0530, Mitul Limbani said:
Hi Siddesh,
Quoting Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com:
On 8/31/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Besides he very convienetly forgets the value of everbody else's contribution - ideas, code, debugging, publicity.
I think he's complaining that FOSS essentially attacks the idea of software as a *product* which can be sold like a tangible product such as a car, stereo, etc. Businesses thriving on FOSS (Trolltech, RH, Suse, Novell, etc) essentially give away the product for free and charge for the service.
Trolltech ==> charges Fee for using their QT library in your code.
Qt library is freely available under GPL if you are making FOSS application. One needs to get commercial copy of Qt only iff s/he is developing a proprietary application using Qt.
Same is the case with MySQL's dual licensing, but somehow people always criticise Trolltech :)
Anurag
On 8/31/06, Anurag anurag@gnuer.org wrote:
Same is the case with MySQL's dual licensing, but somehow people always criticise Trolltech :)
People don't spare MySQL for that either. But true, not the same as they do Trolltech :)
Regards,
Hi,
On 8/31/06, Mitul Limbani mitul@enterux.com wrote:
Quoting Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com:
as a car, stereo, etc. Businesses thriving on FOSS (Trolltech, RH, Suse, Novell, etc) essentially give away the product for free and
Trolltech ==> charges Fee for using their QT library in your code.
This is partly correct. Trolltech charges fee only if you sell your code ( that uses Qt ) and not if you give away your code free. Which is pretty ok, imho. Because they need run a company and in real world company need revenue to pay its employees. So basically they charge only if you try to make money using their product and not otherwise which somehow looks fair enough to me.
Cheers!
Pradeepto
On 31-Aug-06, at 5:54 PM, Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
This is partly correct. Trolltech charges fee only if you sell your code ( that uses Qt ) and not if you give away your code free. Which is pretty ok, imho. Because they need run a company and in real world company need revenue to pay its employees. So basically they charge only if you try to make money using their product and not otherwise which somehow looks fair enough to me.
so why doesnt everyone else do this?
Hi,
On 8/31/06, Kenneth Gonsalves lawgon@au-kbc.org wrote:
On 31-Aug-06, at 5:54 PM, Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
This is partly correct. Trolltech charges fee only if you sell your code ( that uses Qt ) and not if you give away your code
so why doesnt everyone else do this?
No idea at all. Some people call it License hack, perhaps that's why.
Cheers!
Pradeepto
On Thursday 31 August 2006 05:54 pm, Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
Hi,
On 8/31/06, Mitul Limbani mitul@enterux.com wrote:
Quoting Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com:
as a car, stereo, etc. Businesses thriving on FOSS (Trolltech, RH, Suse, Novell, etc) essentially give away the product for free and
Trolltech ==> charges Fee for using their QT library in your code.
This is partly correct. Trolltech charges fee only if yousell your code ( that uses Qt )
Absoluteky wrong. You CAN sell your code for a zillion dollars as long as it is gpld.
and not if you give away your code
Wrong again. You pay Trolltech for their non gpld library even if you gave away your non gpld app for free.
Basically they dont care what you do with your code as long as you adhere to the terms of their licence.
Hi,
On 8/31/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
Trolltech ==> charges Fee for using their QT library in your code.
This is partly correct. Trolltech charges fee only if yousell your code ( that uses Qt )
Absoluteky wrong. You CAN sell your code for a zillion dollars as long as it is gpld.
Not quite actually. Well, I am not disputing what can be done with GPLed code or what can't be done. I saying something different.
and not if you give away your code
Wrong again. You pay Trolltech for their non gpld library even if you gave away your non gpld app for free.
No again.
If I have understood things correctly, its as simple as this - You can use Qt for any non-commercial application. The moment you make money from the same code/app you have to pay Trolltech. Its pretty much mentioned in their licenses and FAQs [1][2][3].
[-]http://www.trolltech.com/developer/faqs/Licensing [1]http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/120/ [2]http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/114/ [3]http://www.trolltech.com/developer/knowledgebase/118/
<standard-disclaimer: this mail is not for flaming purposes. Its for "information">
Cheers!
Pradeepto
On Thursday 31 August 2006 07:10 pm, Pradeepto Bhattacharya wrote:
If I have understood things correctly, its as simple asthis - You can use Qt for any non-commercial application. The moment you make money from the same code/app you have to pay Trolltech. Its pretty much mentioned in their licenses and FAQs [1][2][3].
One of the reasons that Trolltech gets a lot of flak - deliberately misleading people into beliveng that gpld software cannot be commercial. You can take any gpld app and sell it for what ever you please. That includes Trolltech, Suse, RH created code. You can combine gpld code with other gpld code to create new gpld code whose copyright rest with you. If you distribute this code it has to be gpld. The distros (which is akin to collection of essays in a book as opposed to the essays themselves) maybe licensed differently. So you may not copy the CD. But you can copy individual packages and make an identical cd. Ya i ran this thru a legal beagle.
On 8/31/06, Mitul Limbani mitul@enterux.com wrote:
Trolltech ==> charges Fee for using their QT library in your code.
True only if you're selling your own code as well. If your app is free then their library is also free.
RH ==> Enterprise Linux is not for free. SuSE ==> Enterprise Linux is not for free. Novell ==> Groupware, etc etc are not for free.
So point being they still sell software as product and also charge hefty fee for support, Just that their licensing terms are relaxed. (Similar to Microsoft or any other proprietory vendor does)
The RHEL license: http://www.redhat.com/licenses/rhel_rha_eula.html SLED license: www.novell.com/licensing/eula/sled_10/sled_10_english.pdf
The license is infact the crucial difference. According to the license one is free to copy, modify and redistribute the OS or its components, but not commercially.
So I'm free to download/borrow a copy of RHEL and make zillion copies to install on zillion servers. But if I want support from RH, I'll need to buy a subscription for every machine i've installed RH on.
It looks like they're selling a product (the package of OS+support) but in essence they're charging for the support only. That's a vital difference from any proprietary software.
The SLED agreement however does mention "you must get a license for every copy installed". So you're right on that one. Infact they even have the following clause:
"Novell reserves all rights not expressly granted to You. You may not: (1) reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software except and only to the extent it is expressly permitted by applicable law or the license terms accompanying a component of the Software; or (2) transfer the Software or Your license rights under this Agreement, in whole or in part."
And an oops about Novell, I actually meant the distro they have, which infact is Suse ;-)
Regards,
On Thursday 31 August 2006 06:14 pm, Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
"Novell reserves all rights not expressly granted to You. You may not: (1) reverse engineer, decompile, or disassemble the Software except and only to the extent it is expressly permitted by applicable law or the license terms accompanying a component of the Software; or (2) transfer the Software or Your license rights under this Agreement, in whole or in part."
That should be applicable to non gpld packages packaged in the distro - nvidia drivers. You can do as the gpl permits with any gpld package.
On 8/31/06, jtd jtd@mtnl.net.in wrote:
That should be applicable to non gpld packages packaged in the distro
- nvidia drivers. You can do as the gpl permits with any gpld
package.
Applies to everything except those components that allow you to reverse-engineer,decompile, etc; meaning the GNU, BSD, Apache, MIT, etc licensed components.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Siddhesh Poyarekar wrote:
His argument is that if he writes something and gives it away to a community, the community is free to improve it and distribute it. But at the same time, he stands to lose his livelihood as he becomes a disposable commodity in the face of the hundreds in the community.
http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/economideskatsamakas2.pdf http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/desouza.pdf http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/rossi_motivations.pdf http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/lernertirole3.pdf http://opensource.mit.edu/papers/lakhaniwolf.pdf
Guess the above would be a good enough material for a response to the column
- --
You see things; and you say 'Why?'; But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw
On 31-Aug-06, at 2:50 PM, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay wrote:
Guess the above would be a good enough material for a response to the column
why are you sending this twice to the list?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
why are you sending this twice to the list?
Did I ? Sorry for that then. Must have hit reply-all rather than reply on the MUA.
:Sankarshan
- --
You see things; and you say 'Why?'; But I dream things that never were; and I say 'Why not?' - George Bernard Shaw
Sometime on Thu, Aug 31, 2006 at 03:46:08PM +0530, Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay said:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Kenneth Gonsalves wrote:
why are you sending this twice to the list?
Did I ? Sorry for that then. Must have hit reply-all rather than reply on the MUA.
No, actually your MUA sent reply to both mm.ilug-bom.org.in and mm.glug-bom.org domains. You may use any one of them.
Anurag
--- Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay sankarshan.mukhopadhyay@gmail.com wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with Fedora - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFE9qnxXQZpNTcrCzMRAsvgAKDEU+0b0rpXwwKxAbNxDOf5EIQjNgCeKCxS jXWCvhChUKTLcgwaINNp6kE= =CFis -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Your signature is to long. Maybe you can post a lnk to a page that contains your pgp signature.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com
On 8/31/06, Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
There's an article in The Times of India (page 23, "No Free lunches for me") by Charles Assisi, who describes himself as "A socialist turned capitalist". He makes an argument about why Free Software will not work in the mainstream market.
His argument is that if he writes something and gives it away to a community, the community is free to improve it and distribute it. But at the same time, he stands to lose his livelihood as he becomes a disposable commodity in the face of the hundreds in the community.
My thinking is what he fears is more of the kind that one (maybe) cannot become a billionaire.. doing FOSS business... maybe becoming most adorable, admired, travelled,.. etc is not what he wants!!
Karunakar
Hello,
My thinking is what he fears is more of the kind that one (maybe) cannot become a billionaire.. doing FOSS business... maybe becoming most adorable, admired, travelled,.. etc is not what he wants!!
Karunakar
Sorry for being Devil's Advocate, but why would a human not think of being a millianaire when his idea is niche and his software is something that is need of hour ? Opensource may allow to become one, but Free Software doesnt.
Thanks & Regards, Mitul Limbani, Founder & CEO, Enterux Solutions, The Enterprise Linux Company (TM), www.enterux.com
Sometime on Aug 31, ML cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Sorry for being Devil's Advocate, but why would a human not think of being a millianaire when his idea is niche and his software is something that is need
because being a millionaire has no advantages over being a geek.
On Monday 04 September 2006 01:04 pm, Philip Tellis wrote:
Sometime on Aug 31, ML cobbled together some glyphs to say:
Sorry for being Devil's Advocate, but why would a human not think of being a millianaire when his idea is niche and his software is something that is need
because being a millionaire has no advantages over being a geek.
That should make a wonderful sig line :-)
On Thursday 31 August 2006 19:52, Mitul Limbani wrote:
Sorry for being Devil's Advocate, but why would a human not think of being a millianaire when his idea is niche and his software is something that is need of hour ? Opensource may allow to become one, but Free Software doesnt.
The thinking of an artist much differs from that of a businessman.
G Karunakar wrote:
On 8/31/06, Siddhesh Poyarekar siddhesh.poyarekar@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
There's an article in The Times of India (page 23, "No Free lunches for me") by Charles Assisi, who describes himself as "A socialist turned capitalist". He makes an argument about why Free Software will not work in the mainstream market.
His argument is that if he writes something and gives it away to a community, the community is free to improve it and distribute it. But at the same time, he stands to lose his livelihood as he becomes a disposable commodity in the face of the hundreds in the community.
My thinking is what he fears is more of the kind that one (maybe) cannot become a billionaire.. doing FOSS business... maybe becoming most adorable, admired, travelled,.. etc is not what he wants!!
My guess is that `someone' with vested interest in killing FOSS has invested in precious media space.
Regards,
Rony.
___________________________________________________________ All new Yahoo! Mail "The new Interface is stunning in its simplicity and ease of use." - PC Magazine http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html
-
Abhishek Daga -
Anurag -
G Karunakar -
jtd -
Kenneth Gonsalves -
krishnakant Mane -
Mitul Limbani -
Mrugesh Karnik -
Philip Tellis -
Pradeepto Bhattacharya -
Rony -
Sankarshan Mukhopadhyay -
Siddhesh Poyarekar