gnupic: gpal fork
Subject:
Re: gpal fork
From:
Byron A Jeff ####@####.####
Date:
9 Mar 2004 16:38:12 -0000
Message-Id: <20040309160532.GA13321@cleon.cc.gatech.edu>
On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 04:21:32PM +0100, Michiel Boerman wrote:
> Point taken.
>
> just a thing about Apple though. I haven't really worked out for myself
> wether i find their way in this issue 100% ethical.
I have. It is. No problem. The BSD license specificall allows for what Apple
is doing. And Apple has given a whole bunch back. No problem at all.
> It's on another
> scale -certainly- but it does feel a bit like what the oopic dudes are
> doing.
I don't think so. Craig amde gpal GPL specifically so that in the natural
course of things it would be Open Source and a collaborative effort. The forker
is specifically circumventing the sprit of the GPL by packaging the closed
source of his project away from the GPL gpal by not linking or including
source. It's correct to the letter of the license, but violates its sprit.
That's why Craig is annoyed.
But this is a survival of the fittest situation. The best way to combat such
forks is simply to put the best product you can out there and let the users
decide.
BAJ
>
> Michiel
>
> On Mar 9, 2004, at 3:28 PM, Byron A Jeff wrote:
>
> >On Tue, Mar 09, 2004 at 02:19:03PM +0100, Michiel Boerman wrote:
> >>Don't agree with you on this one. Sometimes it takes a commercial
> >>initiative to get things moving a bit. I'm a Mac user. I'm very happy
> >>with the connection they made with the open-souce-universe. But I'm
> >>equally happy with their proprietary user interface which they guard
> >>as
> >>a hellhound. Helps to set a standard (and a high quality one in my
> >>opinion). And that is the achilles heel of the open source world. too
> >>many little islands doing their own thing.
> >>The oopic thing is just the wrong combination of both worlds. Yet
> >>another island with little added value from the commercial push.
> >
> >But the two concepts of closed source and commercial are orthogonal.
> >RedHat
> >makes millions every year selling distributions and services that can
> >be
> >freely downloaded.
> >
> >BTW Apple is like apples and gorillas in this argument primarily
> >because
> >they are a well established enough concern that they can be responsive
> >to
> >their customers needs. The other thing is that in a lot of ways their
> >base
> >OS is firmware tied to their hardware.
> >
> >All I'm saying is that the forker can easily make a value added package
> >putting together Open Source software and selling the packages. In
> >every market
> >there is a group who simply want to be users. You can always sell to
> >them and
> >they will happily buy. They have no interest in redistributing. They
> >just want
> >to use it. They are happy to pay for the convenience.
> >
> >The bottom line is that the scarcity model of closed source
> >development is
> >going the way of the dodo bird. And those who cling to it instead of
> >adapting
> >to the new software market are going to find themselves in the same
> >spot as
> >the bird: extinct.
> >
> >BAJ
> >
> >>
> >>Michiel
> >>
> >>
> >>On Mar 9, 2004, at 1:27 PM, Byron A Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >>>What closed source authors have not yet figured out is that there
> >>>really isn't
> >>>a constituency that exists anymore that benefits from the closed
> >>>source model.
> >>>There used to be a time where it was a viable profit model. It just
> >>>isn't
> >>>anymore. Here's what's going to happen: Developers won't use it
> >>>because it
> >>>won't meet their needs. Someone will need a Mac or FreeBSD or other
> >>>kind of
> >>>port. Others will need better performance or a specialized interface.
> >>>But
> >>>in the closed source model only one person (or a small group) can
> >>>fulfill
> >>>all of these requests. So it'll move slowly.
> >
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: ####@####.####
> For additional commands, e-mail: ####@####.####
