Speech on Linux...

[Anton Markov]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

It seems some of you misinterpreted what I was trying to say:

Tim Writer wrote:
> Anton Markov <anton-F0u+EriZ6ihBDgjK7y7TUQ at public.gmane.org> writes:
>>Let me clarify that. General software (i.e. kernel, browser, etc. - the
>>stuff that open source is strongest in) should be free for
>>non-profit/personal use. Businesses have to either pay a fee, or
>>actively contribute to the software (sort of like a community source
>>license idea). Specialized (narrow market) software such as games, CAD,
>>bank systems, etc. can be proprietary. I mean, how many people here
>>really need to use the same bank system as TD?

What I mean, is that it is OK for some software not to be open source.
If the developers don't want the benefits of community collaboration and
would rather market the software the old-fashioned way, let them. If
Microsoft can't make a decent web browser, their loss (OK, so they
shouldn't force people to use it, but that's a separate issue). On the
other hand, if a game becomes popular *despite* being proprietary, there
is nothing wrong with that.

<snip>
> Since they already pay a
> large number of in-house developers and consultants to work on their
closed
> source systems, they have nothing to lose and everything to gain by
> redirecting (some of) those efforts to supporting open source systems
which
> already work as well or better than their in-house code.
>
> As Robert said in his follow-up, something like 90% of code in
production is
> written in-house. How much of that, do you think, is a result of NIH
> syndrome? In my experience, most of it. Imagine a world where just half of
> these largely wasted resources were redirected to open source
> projects. Computers might actually be useful. :-)

I didn't say software should not be open source. While the GPL and
similar licenses guarantee that any code *released* under the license
will be open source, it says nothing about businesses using software and
never releasing it. Like you said above, we need to encourage businesses
to redirect their in-house developers towards improving the open source
software they use. If we asked businesses to make a contribution to the
software they use (money, code, hardware, etc.), it would be no
different than an accountant charging them for their services, except
that the community would benefit. The software would still remain open
source, but the extra contributions would help improve the quality of
the software.

Of course I know this would never happen over night. I just think it's
something the open source community needs to discuss.

Someone mentioned a long time ago how people expect computer advice for
free. Letting businesses use software without some sort of return (and
not just "saving the Earth from the scum of Redmond.."), is along the
same lines. I am just trying to understand why it is so commonplace.


(If someone wants this subject dropped _now_, just says so. I'll
apologize and shut up).

- --
Anton Markov <("anton" + "@" + "truxtar" + "." + "com")>

GnuPG Key fingerprint =
5546 A6E2 1FFB 9BB8 15C3  CE34 46B7 8D93 3AD1 44B4

*** LINUX - MAY THE SOURCE BE WITH YOU! ***
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.4 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFBGkE7RreNkzrRRLQRAhrKAJ0VOT3rNs20CsqeasruWhrr39y0XQCdHpc6
sW1EPBnDnkDXB/De99W+laE=
=QPps
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--
The Toronto Linux Users Group.      Meetings: http://tlug.ss.org
TLUG requests: Linux topics, No HTML, wrap text below 80 columns
How to UNSUBSCRIBE: http://tlug.ss.org/subscribe.shtml