[ILUG-BOM] Re: Ur view is right - But not entirely right and other OT

[jtdyahoo]

On Friday 20 July 2001 12:56, Tushar Burman wrote:
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "jtdyahoo" <jtdesouza at yahoo.com>
> To: <linuxers at mm.ilug-bom.org.in>
> Sent: Thursday, July 19, 2001 4:49 PM
> Subject: [ILUG-BOM] Re: Ur view is right - But not entirely right
> and other OT
>
> > You have the wrong business model. 

>
> Yes, but this is the model that would achieve the end - making
> the most money. Is there a software business model that would
> make decent money and still allow the user to do what he wishes
> with the software? Frankly, I'd put my money in MS stock as
> opposed to RedHat stock. This might seem like flamebait, but only
> to those who don't know me already.

Which is the main bone of contention. Are the rights as ebodied in 
the gpl more important than the right of a business to survive.
I think not. Business have to be built keeping this fundamental 
point in mind.

>
> Ok, now I'm a bit confused. Which motorcycle relates to what
> model of the software business? I'm assuming most commercial
> software licenses prevent the modification of the programs as a
> whole - even if you own the software and modify it for your own
> use - this I definitely don't agree with.
>

A standard mobike is a standard software package, a customised 
mobike is a customised software package. The prices are related to 
the rawmaterial, labour, and other inputs and are more or less 
similiar for similiar models. In contrast software prices have 
absolutely no corelation to their production costs. You can copy a 
mobike but it is not cost effective - no fancy laws here. You cant 
copy the software due to coyright laws - not because of economics.

> Agreed, provided there is really no value-addition happening. If
> a software company produces a product that has little or no
> competition, that isn't a barrier at all. They can sell it as
> they wish to and we can choose not to use it if it doesn't suit
> our philosophy(ies).

As long as they do not prevent you from using any or all parts as 
you please.

In the case of an OS the API is what is important. When I buy 
Windoze (read as most properitory software) do I get a copy of the 
API?. Nope that is a seperate product. How come? What do i do if i 
want to write a program?
Oh dear but APIs are the family jewels and who cares what you want 
to do, (billgates accent here) "It would be very dangerous for the 
Company and it's shareholders to expose the family jewels to 
others. How would we continue to milk you of your last penny with 
our d*** in your hands?"

>
> > As expertise grows in society premium goods aquire a commodity
> > characteristics. Businesses then need customers to uniquely
> > identify their products from those of competitors - BRANDING
> > and the accompanying marketing baggage. Laws that prevent
> > growth of and disbursement of knowledge within society so that
> > only a few may benefit has no place in any society.
>
> Agreed. However, again taking the most done-to-death example, I
> don't think MS filled the tender for "Heal the world, make it a
> better place" and even if they did, I think they would be looked
> upon with a degree of suspicion.

The copyright and patent laws effectively prevent use of your 
intellect for betterment. That is much more insidious than not 
doing something (M$, being the favoured whipping horse, is used 
here). DMCA, Adobe, MP3, GIF the list is very long.


> > government monopoly. So how do you protect the value of your
> > money? By converting into a more stable and valuable currency
> > say $ (GNU-Linux). But this is illegal. Why? as the people
> > migrate to $ the Rs. will become more worthless and the $ more
> > valuable. Who looses? The irresponsible government ofcourse. So
> > govt. builds legal barriers and use the FERA (copyright) to
> > nail the smart ones
>
> A most unique explanation :)
>
> How is switching to GNU/Linux illegal or in any way restricted?
> There are no software licenses that will prevent you from NOT
> using the software.

The reverse engineering of APIs and programs is illiegal (AFAIK). 
My data and inputs (and that of most other people) converted to 
some unknown format (without the knowledge of the vast majority) 
cannot be used. Why? cause the tools for doing this cannot be made. 
That is the ridiculous convolution, subterfuge and unethical 
practice being used by M$. You realise this well after the cancer 
has spread. My government example was to draw attention to this 
particular issue. Can you switch over to GNU yes but at 
considerable cost to the vast majority. How many of us switched OS 
because of these unethical practices. At least I was in for a rude 
shock about the etheical issues when I started using GLinux. 

>
> It gives you the option. You had the freedom NOT to use
> proprietary software anyway, regardless of GNU / GPL. I don't
> think it prevents the fatcats from doing anything. They can
> spread FUD about it and thats about it. I don't think any state
> is about to enact a law making free software illegal.

If body of public data is in a properitory format, it has become 
unusable without explicitly agreeing to become unethical. This is a 
sort of corruption that is worse than passing a law. BTW is the pdf 
format gpl.

>
> My bottom line:
>
> We can choose NOT to use proprietary software. It's like a hunger
> strike, except thanks to free software, we don't have to go
> hungry. Now back to my original question: If software is free,
> how does one make money out of software? Business models invited
> :)

Who wants to be an ethical millionaire?;-)

>
-- 
jtdesouza at yahoo.com

_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com