From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.9 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 103376,9b30240b5a381bbf X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2002-08-23 09:33:28 PST Message-ID: <3D666253.5060408@cogeco.ca> From: "Warren W. Gay VE3WWG" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.0; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020618 Netscape/7.0b1 X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: OT: Software Economics was RE: Ada 95 for an ARM-based bare board? References: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:26:59 -0400 NNTP-Posting-Host: 198.96.47.195 X-Complaints-To: abuse@sympatico.ca X-Trace: news20.bellglobal.com 1030120020 198.96.47.195 (Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:27:00 EDT) NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 23 Aug 2002 12:27:00 EDT Organization: Bell Sympatico Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!cyclone.bc.net!torn!webster!nf1.bellglobal.com!nf2.bellglobal.com!news20.bellglobal.com.POSTED!not-for-mail Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:28340 Date: 2002-08-23T12:26:59-04:00 List-Id: 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