home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: sparky!uunet!paladin.american.edu!gatech!darwin.sura.net!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!ogicse!network.ucsd.edu!riscsm!usenet
- From: bashford@scripps.edu (Don &)
- Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss
- Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
- Message-ID: <BASHFORD.93Jan7194947@zippy.scripps.edu>
- Date: 8 Jan 93 03:50:55 GMT
- Article-I.D.: zippy.BASHFORD.93Jan7194947
- References: <1993Jan5.090712.9584@uwasa.fi> <2B49ED1A.7405@tct.com>
- <1id6n6INNcn5@agate.berkeley.edu> <2B4BC9F1.666E@tct.com>
- <FRIEDMAN.93Jan7055058@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>
- Sender: usenet@riscsm.scripps.edu
- Organization: The Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA, USA
- Lines: 54
- In-Reply-To: friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu's message of 7 Jan 93 05:50:58
-
- >>>>> In article <FRIEDMAN.93Jan7055058@nutrimat.gnu.ai.mit.edu>, friedman@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Noah Friedman) writes:
-
- noah> In article <2B4BC9F1.666E@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
- Chip> I propose that a software system can have either industry acceptance or
- Chip> GPL coverage, but not both. I make one exception: software development
- Chip> tools. After all, tools are by and large obtained at specific programmer
- Chip> request, and programmers love source code.
-
- noah> You may be right, but no one knows for certain yet. The GNU
- noah> Project hasn't produced much except development tools and
- noah> unix-replacing utilities which by and large are only used by
- noah> people who like those sorts of things. :-) That's already got
- noah> us too occupied to do much else.
-
- I think Chip is probably sort of right. Programmers tend to build
- for themselves the tools that they want or need. They enjoy sharing
- them with others (See how clever!) and, as Chip says, programmers love
- getting a program with source. Tools like wordprocessors and spreadsheets
- needed by non-programmers are things that programmers are less apt
- to produce unless someone is paying them for it explicity. So I
- think there is more likely to be GPL'd programming tools than GPL'd
- "common user apps" not so much because of lack of "industry acceptence"
- but because they are less likely to be produced in the first place.
-
- But if, say, a good PC word processer were released with a GPL, I suspect
- it would do well. The reason I think so is that there is so much
- "pirated" PC code out there that the software companies are complaining
- about billions in lost sales due to this "theft" and are trying to
- crack down. I think think these millions of "pirates" would welcome
- a useful program that they could legally use, copy and share even
- without any formal vendor support (which they don't have as "pirates"
- anyway).
-
- noah> There may be any number of reasons why nobody else has developed
- noah> any GPL'ed "applications" yet. A large part of it, in my
- noah> speculative opinion, is that it's a fairly new idea and most
- noah> companies don't yet accept that it could work. Very few radical
- noah> ideas have met with overwhelming approval at their introduction.
-
- Its not the newness or radicalness of the idea, its the smallness
- of the profits to be had. The GNU Manifesto is up front about the
- fact that free software is not as profitable as hoarded software.
- Very few companies have any sort of social vision other than profit
- as their basis, so they cannot be expected to produce free software
- unless something like a GPL on a piece of code they want very much
- to use drives them to it. That's capitalism in the pre-post-scarcity
- world!
-
- noah> We'll see if Oleo takes off when it gets into better shape.
-
- Is there a WISYWYG word processor in the works?
-
- Don Bashford
- bashford@scripps.edu
-