Re: future of proprietry source code (was: Ada generics are bad)

[David Masterson <David.Masterson@kla-tencor.com>]

Fergus Henderson wrote:
> 
> nabbasi@earthlink.net writes:
> 
> >But lets be realistic here. as long as there are companies who work for
> >profit, there will always be companies who will guard the source code they
> >develop. to remove this protection, you have to remove the need for companies
> >to make profit out of software.
> 
> No, all you need to do is to make it uneconomic to hoard source code.
> 
> Today, in many (most?) areas of the software industry it is already
> uneconomic to write products from scratch, without reusing existing
> software such as GUI libraries, for example.  Furthermore, this trend
> towards dependence on code reuse looks set to increase even further as
> times goes by.  Currently these libraries are mostly proprietry,
> but imagine what would happen if they were GPL'd!

Fah!  This is a smokescreen that should be obvious by now.  GPL'd
software is not conducive to building a software development business
around.  Over the years of watching the rise of the GNU Manifesto and
GPL'd software, I've come to the following conclusions:

* GPL and a tools development business seem incompatible.
** GPL "frees" the source code for the tools of the business.
** "Free" source code dilutes the tool business' "competitive
advantage".
* GPL and a consulting business seems more (but not completely)
compatible.
** Tools to aid in the consulting work become "freely" available.
** Acquiring tools is no longer a barrier to entering the business.
** Improving the tools can attract new customers and hurt competitors.
** Improving the tools too much can hurt business ("works well for me").
* No business based upon the GPL will be a huge money maker.
** Large money attracts competition which dilutes the customer base.
** The GPL cuts the time for entering the market (copy a competitor).
** The GPL removes business incentive for developing good products.
* The ideals of the GNU Manifesto drove the development of the GPL.
** The GM and GPL target software but seem to have broader implications.
** The GM and GPL are controversial in their application to business.
** Controversy is bad for business.

> Given the amazing rate of progress of GPL'd software since the birth of
> the internet, it is far from unimaginable that in the future GPL'd
> libraries may outpace and outcompete all the proprietry libraries.
> This could lead to a situation in which refusal to release source code
> would incur such a competitive disadvantage, due to the resulting inability
> to reuse all this GPL'd code, that it was utterly uneconomic.

The amazing rate of progress in GPL'd software is largely due to people
on their own and without pay creating software that they are interested
in.  This is all well and good, but it isn't a business model.  When you
factor business concerns into this model, isn't it just another way of
saying "free labor"?

> I don't know whether or not this scenario will eventuate, but
> it is not unrealistic, IMHO, given a sufficiently long time frame.

The current interest in "free" software is largely due to a backlash
against Microsoft.  If Microsoft succeeds in quelling this backlash,
then the fervor for "free" software will die down (it won't go away) and
so will the progress that GPL'd software is making.

> If this scenario _does_ eventuate, however, then I think it could lead
> to a much more efficient use of resources than is currently the case
> in the software industry.

Again, can you say -- "free labor"...?

-- 
=========================
David Masterson
KLA-Tencor Corp.
One Technology Dr.
Milpitas, CA 95035
408-875-6836                           
David.Masterson@kla-tencor.com
=========================
I only speak for myself
  it keeps me out of trouble