[ILUG] open source article

[kevin lyda]

David Murphy wrote:
> So, effectively, there's no money to be made in GPL software. Note
> carefully that I say "GPL software", by which I mean copies of or
> per-user/per-machine licences to use GPL software. I do not mean
> consultancy on the selection, deployment, or tailoring of GPL
> software. I do not mean training on the use of GPL software. I do not
> mean hardware bundled with GPL software that enables one to ues the
> hardware. Those are all ways to make money using GPL software,

and yet somehow the largest linux distribution company is fully gpl'd -
even it's installer.  it makes nearly all it's money from selling cd's
with the software.  (i personally think the training and portal ideas
are going to suck money from them)

debates about the gpl always seem to take place in this alternate
reality; at least they most certainly avoid *this* reality.  for
instance bsd people have claimed in the past that the gpl doesn't work
for embedded applications.  er...  tivo, empeg, the linux embedded
consortium, and i think some japanese company set up a linux system in a
fridge.  there's the argument that gpl software doesn't make money - and
yet it's companies with gpl software that are making money (well they
are in terms of companies these days).  and that's in spite of the
headstart that bsd software had.

so if people must have this discussion on the list, please compare your
arguments to the world we live in.

for instance someone made the comment that selling water seems silly,
and yet it's done.  even in places where there are public water charges
people buy bottled water.  people frequently compare free software to
cars, but think further.  yes, you can open up the bonnet and change
your own oil, transmission fluid, spark plugs, and other such things but
most people have someone else do it for a healthy sum.  why?  because
with water you trust the company that makes it, or because it's
convenient at the time.  with cars it's because of experience, or to
save you time.

gpl software is the same.  redhat focuses on branding - people will
trust redhat linux and they'll buy it from them for quality and
security.  so that's like the tap water vs bottled water.  the
convenience factor - ever download an iso?  right.  and people buy
distributions in general because it's time/experience consuming to
install it bit by bit.  i can set up a redhat linux box in 30 minutes. 
i've had similar times with other distributions.  doing it by hand takes
much longer - it took a week to gnu-ize a sunos 4.1.4 box a number of
years ago.

i can see why people argue against it, but i wonder if they see the
arguments for it?  gpl'd software is succeeding in the business world
right now.  if you can argue against it within the confines of that
reality then fine.  otherwise, please start a fantasy ilug and argue on
it...

kevin
-- 
kevin at suberic.net       "we were goin' for breakfast.  in canada.  we
fork()'ed on 37058400    made a deal: if she'd stop hookin', i'd stop
meatspace place: home    shootin' people.  maybe we were aiming high."
                                                   --porter, "payback"