Message-ID: <3EF4ABF7.9050003@coyotegulch.com>
Date: Sat, 21 Jun 2003 15:03:19 -0400
From: Scott Robert Ladd <coyote@coyotegulch.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.3.1) Gecko/20030527 Debian/1.3.1-2
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Stephan von Krawczynski <skraw@ithnet.com>
CC: Werner Almesberger <wa@almesberger.net>, lm@work.bitmover.com,
       miquels@cistron-office.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [OT] Re: Troll Tech [was Re: Sco vs. IBM]
References: <063301c32c47$ddc792d0$3f00a8c0@witbe>	<1056027789.3ef1b48d3ea2e@support.tuxbox.dk>	<03061908145500.25179@tabby>	<20030619141443.GR29247@fs.tum.de>	<bcsolt$37m$2@news.cistron.nl>	<20030619165916.GA14404@work.bitmover.com>	<20030620001217.G6248@almesberger.net> <20030620120910.3f2cb001.skraw@ithnet.com>
In-Reply-To: <20030620120910.3f2cb001.skraw@ithnet.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2451
Lines: 51

Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> GPL has an inherent long-term strategy, you are talking of short-term, Larry.
> That does not match. If I am using only GPL-software I know I am able to use it
> as is in five years from now. If I depend on being nice to commercial
> companies, it may well turn out, that they are not being nice to me no matter
> what I do.

A very technocratic view, to be sure. Source code is no guranatee of 
future portability or viability; for the vast, vast majority of users -- 
we do care about those, don't we? -- source code is useless.

You or I might be able to keep a source-based program going past the 
interest of its creators -- but most computer users lack the skills and 
tools to equal our prowess.

Scan SourceForge and Freshmeat, and you'll find an amazing number of 
dead and dying projects, without support or documentation. The printing 
press didn't automatically impart literacy upon the masses, and the 
source code for "free" software promises nothing about future support.

I'm not saying that commercial companies are any more reliable -- what I 
*am* pointing out is that "free" software makes no guarantees, either.

> In other words: it's all about being free or being dependant on goodwill.

Free software is very dependent on good will -- the good will of 
developers to continue maintaining and updating their software for free! 
A commercial software company only survives if it provides value to its 
customers -- and that value includes future support.

Most "free" software exists to scratch an itch; if the programmer stops 
scratching, users are out-of-luck. Unless, of course, they hire someone 
like you or me to maintain or update an abandoned program... ;)

Commercial software is no better or worse then its free counterpart; 
they merely operate under different rules. While I love free software 
and strongly support its existence and growth, I also am cognizant of 
its weaknesses. To ignore those weaknesses requires either fanaticism or 
willful ignorance.

-- 
Scott Robert Ladd
Coyote Gulch Productions (http://www.coyotegulch.com)
Professional programming for science and engineering;
Interesting and unusual bits of very free code.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/