Re: [Fsuk-manchester] RMS on Swedish Pirate Party vs Free Software

[Andrew John Hughes]

2009/8/2 Pater Mann <address@hidden>:
> John Hughes wrote:
>> No one is forcing you to give software away.
>
> The original post that I was replying to was discussing making the
> copyright period on software really short so that all software would
> have to be released to the public very quickly. I call that forcing me
> to give my software away.
>

Ok I was interpreting your comment as more directed at Free Software,
given your other arguments supporting proprietary software.  This is
already true now; it's just that the date it will happen (50 years or
75 years since the author's death in UK law) is pretty far in the
future.  And just as the 5 year Pirate Party copyright term wouldn't
cause proprietary software to be given away either, neither will that.
 Personally, I think 5 years is a bit too short (10 or 15 seems
better) and the matter is complicated by the fact that newer software
is based on the old, so presumably parts of the code will become
public domain and some won't.

>> Free software is not equivalent to software available for zero cost
>> (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html).
>
> Although this is fine in theory, in practice the two go hand in hand.
> Even if you cannot build the software yourself, there is always
> someone willing to do so (often the authors themselves) so free (as in
> freedom) software is almost always available for free (as in beer). I
> have worked for several companies who use free software and I don't
> think any of them have paid for the software in any way (either for
> the software itself, for installation or for support). They just
> download the software from the 'Net and use it. It is only the larger
> free software projects that stand any real chance of making money from
> support and services and the more widely used often end up with a
> corporate sponsor anyway. The smaller projects often have to rely on
> donations which few people seem willing to give.
>

True; as I say, this is why I don't see much of a point in software
that is just zero cost.  It takes away all the advantages on both
sides.

>> Secondly, Free software licenses only kick in when
>> you choose to distribute the software.
>
> That is an interesting point and is one of the reasons behind the new
> licence from the FSF (AGPL: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/agpl.html). As
> Software as a Service (SaaS) becomes more prevalent, the GPL no longer
> protects the freedom of the code because the software is not
> distributed and so the AGPL has been created to ensure that even
> server code is released.
>

I believe even the AGPL means you have to 'distribute' it in some way
i.e. allow public access.

>> By suggesting that software should be proprietary, ...
>
> I did not suggest anything of the sort! I was specifically referring
> to the opposite assertion that all software should be free. I am a
> great supporter of free software and would never deny its right to
> exist. All I was saying was that proprietary software also has a right
> to exist and that the people that develop software (whether
> individuals or companies) should be allowed to choose whether it is
> open or closed, free or proprietary, and not have that decision forced
> upon them.
>

Sorry, I misinterpreted what you were saying as being more of an
anti-FOSS argument than it was.  I disagree that proprietary software
needs to or should be able to exist though.  Such an argument is based
on the idea that the source code is somehow special and unique.  I
think the GNU project's success in cloning and bettering the UNIX
toolset shows just how worthless the argument is, and you also
illustrate this with office software below.  Keeping the source code
secret is born of fear that something dreadful will happen to it.  If
the developer is already providing a good service in producing and
supporting the software, FOSS developers aren't going to attack and
fork the project, just as you point out below.  I just really don't
see how keeping source code proprietary helps anything.

>> you're not saying that developers should get paid for
>> their work, but that the owners of the software (usually the company,
>> not the developers) should be able to make money out of the software
>> virtually forever without any further investment and by taking control
>> of the users through creating a dependency on them for modifications
>> and enhancements.  Microsoft are an obvious example; the actual cost
>> of the development work for a product like Microsoft Office will pale
>> in comparison to how much they have received back by charging hundreds
>> of pounds per copy and maintaining monopolistic control over the
>> product.
>
> You are not forced to use MS Office. Despite Microsoft's best efforts,
> although it has  a large majority of the market, MS Office does not
> have a monopoly. (WordPerfect is, or used to be, widely used in the
> legal profession because there were many specialist macros available.)
> I have no love for Microsoft - their goal seems to be to eliminate all
> other software providers in order to be the only software provider on
> the planet - but there are alternatives. There are several very good
> FOSS office products (OpenOffice.org for one) as well as other
> commercial offerings. If people choose to pay hundreds of pounds for
> MS Office, that is their decision - they should not complain about it.
> (Old joke: Doctor, Doctor, it hurts when I do this. Well don't do it
> then! [grin]) If people did not buy MS Office, its price would very
> quickly drop and, if it still didn't sell, Microsoft would take it off
> the market as they have already done for quite a few software
> products.
>

This wasn't an anti-Microsoft argument.  Feel free to replace them
with Apple, Adobe, etc. if you want.  I also wasn't saying anything
about being forced to using MS Office, although that is true - such
things happen when people start assuming certain software as
'standard' and rely on its proprietary document formats, and the same
is probably true for WordPerfect and the legal profession i.e. Bob
uses X so I need to use X to open one of his documents.  Yes, OO.o can
take a good bash at it, but even now it's still not 100% or ever will
be.

But I'm going off the actual point which was simply that the actual
development cost is overshadowed by the amount of profit made because
there is no continuous outlay to produce more copies.  It's not like
making sofas where you have to make back the cost of producing each
one.

>> Developing proprietary software is a small-minded take on things.  The
>> software is developed to make the company money and for that reason
>> alone.
>
> That is an extremely harsh view! Yes, businesses are about making
> money (they do not stay in business long if they don't!) but that is
> not the sole reason for their existence. There are some companies who
> seem to get things the wrong way round (create a product/service and
> then persuade people that they need it - the fashion industry are
> masters at that), but normally business is about identifying a need
> and then fulfilling that need. You need to make money in order to do
> that but it is also about giving people what they want and there is a
> great deal of satisfaction to be obtained from doing so. Also, it is a
> sad fact that companies cannot stay static - they either grow or die -
> but they cannot grow if they do not make more money than it costs to
> run the business.
>

You can still satisfy people and make money without having to pretend
the software source code is some kind of secret sauce that only your
company can produce.  Competition should be based on the actual value
of the product to the user.

>> Progress at large is being stalled by the desire to make money.
>
> Wow - that is another very sweeping statement, even if you are talking
> specifically about software! There is vastly more free (and open
> source) software than there has ever been (look at SourceForge alone)
> so by your argument, progress should be accelerating, not stalled.
> Also, as I said above, businesses have to keep innovating and
> expanding their range to stay ahead of the competition. It is only
> when there is no competition that progress stalls because there is no
> longer any reason develop the product further.
>

That's true of business generally but sadly I don't see a lot of
competition or innovation in the software field.  The only reason some
still exists is because of Free Software forcing proprietary vendors
to rethink their ideas.  A lot of the most prominent pieces of
software continue to exist by charging their users for new versions
that add fairly minor features and fix bugs.

>> There is a big difference
>> between making sufficient money to live comfortably and making
>> ridiculous amounts by monopolising and controlling users.
>
> Are you talking about individuals or companies here? It may be ok for
> individuals to make "sufficient money to live comfortably" but, as I
> have already explained, businesses must do more than that.
>

It's probably a bit of both.  In the context of businesses, you can
see 'live comfortably' as being able to both function and continue to
innovate.  Instead, what seems to have happened is more and more
smaller proprietary vendors disappear so we are left with a few
dominant corporations.

>> Pegasus could be a much more well-developed application by now
>> if its development hadn't been arbitrarily limited
>
> I will give you credit for saying "could be" rather than "would be"
> but, even so, Pegasus may not have been any different if it had been
> free or open-source software. Firstly, just because the source is
> available does not mean that anyone else will work on it and,
> secondly, even if they did, changes to the core software may have been
> so tightly controlled by the oriignal author that the software would
> be exactly the same as it is now. Yes, it could be forked if the
> source is available but, unless it was either so good that nothing
> else came close or it was something totally unique with no
> competitors, most people would just move on to something else. Also,
> forking a project is a big undertaking. Linus Torvaulds still holds a
> vice-like grip on the Linux kernel and there have been several
> complaints from other kernel developers about that but you don't see
> many forks because maintaining a fork is such a large amount of work,
> often for little or no real gain.
>

Your first point is exactly why I said 'could'.  As to your second
point, I was implying more than just releasing the source code; that's
the easy part.  Creating a successful community around it is the hard
bit.  But if done right, Pegasus could have flourished more than it
does now and there wouldn't be any worry about the products just
vanishing altogether if one developer leaves.

>> Remember: only proprietary software dies.
>
> It depends what you mean by "dies" but there are hundreds (possibly
> thousands) of dead and/or undeveloped projects on SourceForge alone. I
> have searched SF for software many times and often the majority of the
> projects that come up have not changed for several years. So, although
> in theory these projects could be revived because the source is
> available, in practice it rarely happens.
>

You've actually helped me make my point here.  What you refer to on
SourceForge are unmaintained projects.  They aren't really a surprise;
someone has an idea, then doesn't have the time to work on it or
whatever.  But the point is that someone could in time.  However, if
you have a piece of proprietary software and the company goes bust or
just stops producing it, you're stuck.  There will be no more
development as the source code isn't available.

> patermann
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Fsuk-manchester mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/fsuk-manchester
>

Thanks,
-- 
Andrew :-)

Free Java Software Engineer
Red Hat, Inc. (http://www.redhat.com)

Support Free Java!
Contribute to GNU Classpath and the OpenJDK
http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath
http://openjdk.java.net

PGP Key: 94EFD9D8 (http://subkeys.pgp.net)
Fingerprint: F8EF F1EA 401E 2E60 15FA  7927 142C 2591 94EF D9D8