Re: The future of Ada is at risk

["Phaedrus" <phaedrusalt@hotmail.com>]

No need to watch my language there.  As far as the individual user is 
concerned, GPL and "public domain" mean the same thing, Microsoft won't 
receive a dime for it's use.

Interesting.  Would you, personally, pay Microsoft for support?  Would you 
pay for the product if it were available for free?  True, they wouldn't have 
to pay to protect a product that had already been given away, but that kind 
of savings rings a little hollow when you don't have the profits to offset.

When true market niches exist a new predator usually evolves to take 
advantage of them.  The lack of unicorn-eaters is a good indicator of a lack 
of unicorns.  More to the point, I won't be taking my company into game 
development until the niche is profitable, and that will mean non-GPL.

But feel free to go unicorn-hunting if it makes you happy.

Brian

"Brian May" <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au> wrote in message 
news:sa4fxxjg4qy.fsf@snoopy.microcomaustralia.com.au...
>>>>>> "Phaedrus" == Phaedrus  <phaedrusalt@hotmail.com> writes:
>
>    Phaedrus> [...] But just imagine what would happen to Microsoft's
>    Phaedrus> Word profits if the source code suddenly made it's way
>    Phaedrus> into the public domain.  [...]
>
> Need to watch your language here. "public domain" means all rights
> have been given away, and GPL code does not give away all rights.
>
> Also, it is not entirely obvious that profits would go down if the
> source code was available. Microsoft would not longer need to pay
> lawyer's fees or advertising campaigns against "software pirates".
> Programmers outside Microsoft would be able to solve bugs which
> Microsoft aren't interested in solving (sometimes this involves
> security issues). People would still pay Microsoft for support.
>
> Having said that, it would require a major culture shift, and I don't
> see this happening any time soon.
> -- 
> Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>