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: 103376,52a0bacbcdd2da17 X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-08-15 02:35:18 PST Path: archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!newsfeed.stanford.edu!news-spur1.maxwell.syr.edu!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!newsfeed00.sul.t-online.de!t-online.de!news-lei1.dfn.de!news-ham1.dfn.de!news.uni-hamburg.de!cs.tu-berlin.de!uni-duisburg.de!not-for-mail From: Georg Bauhaus Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada Subject: Re: Realtime/embedded project to help with employment. Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:35:16 +0000 (UTC) Organization: GMUGHDU Message-ID: References: <3F367B39.8060108@noplace.com> <1060611604.45048@master.nyc.kbcfp.com> <3F38DEBC.8040208@noplace.com> <3F3A39E6.1070803@noplace.com> <3F3B8DB8.1060004@noplace.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: d2-hrz.uni-duisburg.de X-Trace: a1-hrz.uni-duisburg.de 1060940116 12053 134.91.1.15 (15 Aug 2003 09:35:16 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@news.uni-duisburg.de NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 15 Aug 2003 09:35:16 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: tin/1.5.8-20010221 ("Blue Water") (UNIX) (HP-UX/B.11.00 (9000/831)) Xref: archiver1.google.com comp.lang.ada:41491 Date: 2003-08-15T09:35:16+00:00 List-Id: Marin David Condic wrote: : Georg B. wrote: :> :> Does that define a capitalist as someone who regularly takes :> everything and gives nothing? :> : Where did I say that? you didn't that is why I have asked to make sure. : :> : If I'm :> : going to work for free, perhaps there are more deserving recipients of :> : my charity than RedHat? :> :> Possibly. Any ideas? :> : I've been saying elsewhere that an alternative form of license is : possible that permits personal and business use without allowing : for-sale use. Details TBD. Read the rest of this thread. I have tried to give an example in another post. : Where do you get this from? Every business must by this analogy be a : "mobster" because it is pretty much by definition an "exclusive group" : and that distributes its products for the benefit of its members and the : detriment of other vendors. Not necessarly, I think. A traditional view is to "live and let live". I don't know how popular this view is in the USA's economy though. So there might be some moral reserve to just blindly distribute products knowing that this will ruin other vendors. This has happened, but it hasn't always succeeded. If you look at the Mickey Mouse copyrights, things become more involved in that the "Disney gang" seems to have (co-)managed modifying factors external to business to "better protect" their source of income, establishing favorable rules (law). IOW, they used techniques of influencing outsiders (polititians) and can now rely on techniques of law enforcement. If you think of this in terms of the mob, are there thechnical differences? :-) : Where was I suggesting that we put guns to people's heads and insist : that they use our products and not someone else's? That is a "mobster". What I have had in mind is the requirement of the license to pay you for commercial use of the software as opposed to you asking for a voluntary contribution, or requiring payment for your support, not for use of your software. (You do not just drive the lorry loaded with the liqueur bottles, you sell the liqueur too, and you make sure that your liqueur recipe cannot be used commercially without fee.) : Developing a superior product and out-competing other vendors and : playing within the bounds of the law is a perfectly moral and decent : thing to do. If you make a superior product and out-compete other vendors, what does this mean? Does it mean that these other vendors will have to find a new job? Do we have to have it that way? Suppose you develop a superior software and offer it under a BSD-style or GNAT-style license. Who will take your software and build a business around it that spoils you, the originators? That might well happen, but, in the long run, will it succeed? - you know the software, because you are the developer, others will first have to make an investment to learn about your software - any semi-smart manager will know that software use requires knowledge of the software, and people to provide that knowledge. Iff this is known, it shows that supported software is the crucial thing, not just software. This is, I think, one of the reasons why the GPL model can work, and also why it may be difficult, but feasable to not be ACT and still offer support for GNAT. Or to offer another compiler under an interesting license and attract customers who will take the compiler and buy the support. Imagine what profit a software project using Charles might gain from a personal introduction by Matthew Heaney? (If you allow me to assume that he wouldn't be opposed to being payed for this introduction.) Maybe someone who has made this (or a similar) experience can comment? Again, if you allow me to speculate, will the producer of Charles have more or less bureaucratic cost if he switches to ADCL, picking up an argument by Hyman Rosen? Whether playing within the bounds of the law is a perfectly moral and decent thing to do is, in my view, a/ depending on what the law allows one to do b/ oversimplifiying reality Moral and decency and law are not necessarily implying each other totally, for sure? Georg