OT: Software Economics was RE: Ada 95 for an ARM-based bare board?

["Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" <ve3wwg@cogeco.ca>]

Robert C. Leif wrote:
> From: Bob Leif
> To: Tom Moran et al.
> The GNU approach is essentially monopolistic. 

This seems unfair, and a sad statement to make IMHO.

> The ultimate in unfair
> competition is to make your product available for free. 

So you think it is unfair for your neighbour next door
to create a software module and share it with you
for free?  After all, this competes with "professional
monopolists".

Or are you saying this is OK, as long as he doesn't
share it with the entire world?  After all, the
"professional monopolists" need to make a monopoly,
er, living ;-)

Your statements don't make a lot of sense to me.

> As opposed to
> professional monopolists, such as Microsoft; the GNU approach instead of
> maximizing return actually minimized it. 

You are evaluating the big picture in terms of a "return".
But what type of "return" are you using for a measure
here?  Monetary returns for the authors? Recoginition?
Control? And for whom(s)?

> Since it saves hardware vendors
> considerable expense, the GNU approach is an excellent solution for
> them.
> Again, I must emphasize that my comments are orthogonal to the question
> of making the source code available. I am in favor of the customer
> having the information included in the sources. 

What "information included in the sources" are we talking
about? Comments?  Or are you referring to the source code
itself and its availability?

> However, I am totally
> against anything that would decrease the value of intellectual property.

So you don't use any of the FSF/GNU tools?  If you are, you are
using intellectual property.  Are you adding or decreasing that
intellectual property?

Curious comments, you make. Warren.
-- 
Warren W. Gay VE3WWG
http://home.cogeco.ca/~ve3wwg