On 12/07/2010 04:11 AM, David Brown wrote:> On 06/12/2010 23:58, Tim Wescott wrote: >> On 12/06/2010 01:43 PM, d_s_klein wrote: >>> On Dec 6, 9:18 am, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Could you please cite chapter and verse? >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Tim Wescott >>>> Wescott Design Serviceshttp://www.wescottdesign.com >>>> >>> >>> According to gnu.org: "Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU >>> Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of >>> software, or that you should charge as little as possible � just >>> enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding." >>> >>> <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html> >> >> I think you're correct in the details, but still off in the main point. >> You can sell me some GPL-ed software, but you can't keep me from turning >> around and posting it on my website for free. So, sooner or later, if >> there's much interest in the stuff at all, it'll turn up for free. >> > > It is perfectly legal to charge for GPL'ed software (though you can only > charge someone a reasonable handling fee for the source code once you > have sold/given them a binary). And once you have the software, you can > then give it away to anyone you want. That much is all true. > > But there may be additional issues in hand, such as trademarks. For > example, (almost) all of Red Hat Enterprise Linux is GPL'ed. You can buy > RHEL, and you can distribute the packages for free (or you can download > the packages for free from Red Hat). But you can't re-distribute the > entire system without infringing on Red Hat's trademarks. Thus CentOS > (and Oracle, and Scientific Linux) take RHEL, remove all Red Hat's > trademarks, perhaps make a few other minor changes, and distribute the > code. > > Most GPL'ed software that is popular is already given out for free - any > charges are typically for additional non-GPL software, documentation, > support services, etc. More specialised software, such as Wind River's > Linux packages, may well only be available for a fee. Once you've paid > the fee and got the binary and source code, you can then publish it for > free on your website. But would you do that, with software you've paid > good money for? And would anyone download it for you, rather than > getting up-to-date and supported packages from the original site? > > There are many people that make money from providing or selling GPL > software, and they do it by providing it as professional-level software > including documentation and support. It is almost invariably zero-price > software that has poor documentation - after all, few people /like/ > writing documentation, so they'll only do it if they get paid to do it.Well, that was my point -- if you're going to make money off of GPL'd software, you're going to sell services, and give the software away for free. The "value for money" proposition isn't a bunch of software with elaborate copy protection -- the "value for money" proposition is that when one of the customer's people calls needing help, he gets it _right now_. If you're going to _pay_ money for GPL'd software, the obvious obverse applies. -- Tim Wescott Wescott Design Services http://www.wescottdesign.com Do you need to implement control loops in software? "Applied Control Theory for Embedded Systems" was written for you. See details at http://www.wescottdesign.com/actfes/actfes.html
Linux on Microblaze
Started by ●December 6, 2010
Reply by ●December 7, 20102010-12-07
Reply by ●December 7, 20102010-12-07
On 7 d=E9c, 18:13, Tim Wescott <t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote:> Well, that was my point -- if you're going to make money off of GPL'd > software, you're going to sell services, and give the software away for > free.Which has the perverse effect of giving an incentive for free software service companies to write obscure and poorly documented code, so they can stay in business. See for example what Codesourcery does.
Reply by ●December 7, 20102010-12-07
Rob Gaddi <rgaddi@technologyhighland.com> wrote:>On 12/6/2010 2:39 PM, Nico Coesel wrote: >> d_s_klein<d_s_klein@yahoo.com> wrote: >> >>> On Dec 6, 9:18=A0am, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> Could you please cite chapter and verse? >>>> -- >>>> >>>> Tim Wescott >>>> Wescott Design Serviceshttp://www.wescottdesign.com >>>> >>> >>> According to gnu.org: "Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU >>> Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of >>> software, or that you should charge as little as possible =97 just >>> enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding." >>> >>> <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html> >> >> The free market principle says that people will get something from the >> cheapest source. In this case: they download from internet. Tim >> Wescott's post is spot on! >> > >This assumes your time is free. Timesys, Montavista, Wind River, and >many others seem to stay entirely in business by convincing folks that >their time is worth more than the cost for their Linux ports/BSPs, etc.You could turn that around: if you know your limitations then you hire an expert. I'm also in the business of getting Linux going on embedded platforms. -- Failure does not prove something is impossible, failure simply indicates you are not using the right tools... nico@nctdevpuntnl (punt=.) --------------------------------------------------------------
Reply by ●December 8, 20102010-12-08
On 07/12/2010 21:45, Sebastien Bourdeauducq wrote:> On 7 d�c, 18:13, Tim Wescott<t...@seemywebsite.com> wrote: >> Well, that was my point -- if you're going to make money off of GPL'd >> software, you're going to sell services, and give the software away for >> free. > > Which has the perverse effect of giving an incentive for free software > service companies to write obscure and poorly documented code, so they > can stay in business. See for example what Codesourcery does. >I think that is quite simply incorrect. Companies that intend to make money from code - free or otherwise - usually aim to be as professional about it as they can. Codesourcery does not write "obscure and poorly documented" code - at least, not gcc and related tools. I can't answer for their other products like the various libraries they make. Codesourcery do not write gcc alone - they are working with a massive existing code base that has been developed over a long time by many companies and individuals. It is certainly fair to describe a lot of gcc as "obscure" code, although many parts of it is reasonably well documented. However, you can't blame the intertwined structure of gcc on CodeSourcery - much of it stems back to RMS's original design decisions, which included a highly monolithic design to make it difficult for commercial compiler developers to steal parts of the code.
