Re: [EE]: opinion on Willem programmer?

Byron Jeff wrote:
> The problem is that if you change the license significantly, and end
> users get screwed, with very limited access to source, and little or
> no ability to use that source in any productive way.

Now you're arguing what a good license should be.  "Good" depends on your
goals and measures.  The FSF wants to see executable software with no
restrictions.  That can be useful, but they ignore or usually not even
acknowledge that enforcing that decreases the choices of the end users.

If you really wanted to do something "good" for the end users then I think
using the GPL is not the right approach.  The GPL does force source of any
software that is derived from it to be open.  However to many that
restriction is too costly, so they don't use GPL code.  In the end the goal
of better and lower cost choices for the end users has not been served as
well as it could have been.

I was going to stop replying on this thread, but what made me respond was
your implicit statement that not having source to a program means you're
screwed.  This is of course totally rediculous.  A very tiny minority of end
users might derive some additional advantage from having access to the
source code for a app they are using, but the vast majority wouldn't know
what to do with it, and most of the ones that do have things to get on with
and don't want to bother messing with it.  Source code accessibility is way
overrated.

If you really want to make things as good as possible for end users, you
need to allow people to make a buck by doing so.  Most developers just don't
have the luxury like Richard Stallman has of forgoing compensation for
creating software.  If you want to harness their power, then you need to let
them make a buck in the process.  I'd much rather see five commercial apps
for a given task than one free one created by university students and
midnight hackers.  The competition between the five commercial apps will
keep them on their toes, and because they can afford to pay software
developers, there are far more people working on creating the software you
want.  Of course none of this prevent those who want to do it on the side
for free from doing it.  If the commercial apps are reasonably priced and
serve the need well, then there is no incentive to create a free app and no
need anyway.

Developing software costs resources.  Ultimately the end users of the
software need to pay for those resources somehow.  In Richard Stallman's
model, it is difficult to force the end users to pay, so there is less
development with GPL code because the people doing the developing can't
afford it.

If someone really wanted to take the moral high ground and try to provide
the best possible situation for end users of software, he'd let people use
his code any way they want.  This is basically what I try to do with my
source except in cases where I fear it will cost me compared to not making
it free.

********************************************************************
Embed Inc, Littleton Massachusetts, http://www.embedinc.com/products
(978) 742-9014.  Gold level PIC consultants since 2000.
--

-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist