[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: SCO identifies code?



On Wed, Aug 20, 2003 at 06:52:45PM +1200, cr wrote:
> On Wednesday 20 August 2003 07:14, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 06:27:03PM +0100, iain d broadfoot wrote:
> > > * Bijan Soleymani (bijan@psq.com) wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 19, 2003 at 08:43:21AM +0100, Mark wrote:
> > > > > On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:33:03PM -0400, Bijan Soleymani wrote:
> > > > > > This makes a lot of sense. I mean if the FSF hired you to write a
> > > > > > GPL program, they wouldn't want you to release a proprietary
> > > > > > version of it after you quit working for them.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why would they care?  They would have their GPLed version, if you
> > > > > choose to write a closed version, that's your choice.
> > > >
> > > > If they didn't care about closed version they wouldn't use the GPL.
> > >
> > > This is broken logic.
> > >
> > > The FSF would have nothing to lose from a closed version of a GPL piece
> > > of software being developed.
> >
> > It's not nothing. Let's say half the users use the FSF/GPL version and
> > half use the closed version. The FSF has just lost half its users. By
> > the FSF's theory half the users have lost their freedom.
> 
> No, they've chosen (for some presumably good reason) to use the 'closed' 
> version.   They still have the freedom to choose.   
> 
> The most you can say is, by using non-'free', they're helping (financially) 
> the 'closed' version and reducing the user base of the 'free' version.   That 
> doesn't matter much so long as the versions remain compatible.   
> If it's M$ doing the 'closed' version, of course, we know what would happen - 
> copyrighted non-free 'features' get added, after which they try to squeeze 
> the free version out.    OTOH, if it's a company with the slightest degree of 
> ethics, then the two versions could offer a wider choice to users.     

I don't know really. I think Microsoft is representative of the
proprietary software industry. Maybe some companies are better than
others, but it simply makes sense that a company would "try to squeeze
the free version out". Companies are out to make money, if their
business is proprietary software, a compatible Free Software version of
the program is not very good for business.

Bijan

Attachment: pgpPMxNUPewbQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: