Subject: Re: problems with open source
From:Stig Hackvšn <>
Date: Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:02:08 -0800

On Wed, Mar 24, 1999 at 06:22:08AM -0000, wrote:
> From: =?iso-8859-1?Q?Stig_Hackv=E4n?= <>
> > from a business perspective, bruce, discouraging a free replacement with a
> > half-free alternative makes a lot of sense.
> Sure, if you as a business person can succeed in killing off a free product
> by releasing a half-free alternative, that makes tremendous sense for you.
> Were you missing the fact that from the user's or secondary developer's
> perspective, that is not the best-case outcome?

i believe that we were talking about new software and not killing off "free"
software, but i'm using windows today and you know what?  i like many things
about it a lot better than linux.  like all the apps that don't come witha
built-in "personal itch"...  i will pay for software that doesn't make me itch
(or pirate it if i don't have money...and lots of other people will,
too...autodesk viewed "pirate" copies of autocad as training materials for
people who would eventually buy autocad....didn't hurt them)

and, i won'd work on gpled software any more unless i really need to...sure,
i'm happy to share my work so that i don't have to maintain it all by myself,
but that's not going to develope polished software because i require $$$ to
polish software for anyone else.  rabid linux devotion has not made my life's made more work for me and it hasn't paid my bills...

> > i don't see why you keep discouraging hybrid approaches.
> Because I feel they do damage to the cause of free software, for the reason
> you've just described. Can you not see that?

your wife doesn't run linux, so what good is it?  does it fulfill the mission
of gnu if people don't want to use it because they still prefer the
proprietary stuff?

> > what's this one?  the non-consultants' license?
> That's what I was thinking of. I don't feel he's thought through all
> of the implications. To make it work from a legal and tax standpoint,
> you would need to create a separate corporation for each software
> project. The corporation would pay income taxes. The developers aren't
> quite stock-holders in a conventional sense, because of the way he wants
> to apportion revenue, but they have the right to elect the corporation
> executive and the right to sue (big problem, IMO). The developers would
> pay income taxes, too - I don't see how to avoid double-taxation. I'd
> like to see a corporate lawyer evaluate this, especially the implications
> of having developers in different nations.
> 	Bruce will clear royalty splits for shareware people at under 10% overhead.
no merchant accounts, selective notification of each sale, etcetera.  they do
all the 1099 stuff...they wire money all around the world...they take any
currency and convert it to any other with only one exchange....

people "leading" the free software community should be more focussed on the
career path opportunities that create the stuff and less short-sighted about
actually getting it all written.  volunteerism only goes so far.  and
loss-leader logic of why large companies should give their work away doesn't
enable a bunch of people change the nature of their work...they're still
working for large companies.  ick.


Stig        ...  Friend of Hacking      ...  707-987-3236 work@home
Hackvšn      ...     ...  415-264-8754 mobile
We are (b)Org ...  http://brainofstig.AI  ...

Feed on "Brain of Stig" --- http://brainofstig.AI/subscribe/