Re: Software as society (was: Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux)
- From: Rich Walker <rw shadow.org.uk>
- Date: 12 Dec 2003 12:59:51 +0000
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
On 11 Dec 2003 at 11:28, Russell McOrmond wrote:
You believe that the vast majority of software development is
incompatible with the GPL. I have yet to see any study that proves
this. Where are your references? (Note: Quoting a Microsoft or
CompTIA study doesn't qualify as a reference ;-)
I don't have any. But then neither do you. Since you didn't pick me
up on my statement that GPL commercial development is dwarfed by
BSD/MIT/etc commercial development, are you agreeing? I think it's
self-evident from a quick search on google myself.
This proves beyond any doubt that business simply does not like the
GPL.
Just as a minor interjection, "self-evident from a quick search" does
not lead to "proves beyond any doubt".
And I think your point is mistaken. Large royalty-based software
companies prefer BSD-without-advertising, because they can take and use
the software and pretend they did the work. They do this all the time,
and try hard to ensure e.g. governments do not mandate use of GPL.
[snip]
As I've said before, this more than anything else makes the GPL
fundamentally broken and choosing it an act as bad as closing the
source. The GPL is bad for software.
Since I don't understand what you are trying to say here, I can't
even begin to discuss it. Sorry.
Would you agree that for every algorithm implemented in code there's
at least 1000 other implementations?
Mostly with the same bugs (See any decent analysis of fault patterns in
N-version software development).
Why then doesn't someone just write one implementation and everyone
else use that implementation instead of duplicating the time &
effort, especially when debugging takes 50% of production cost?
Because they're idiots.
Trying to get programmers to even look at the list of available
libraries is like trying to nail shit to a wall - futile, messy, and
leaving you with a really bad smell.
Therefore in order to improve the quality of software, our principal
aim must be to encourage reuse. Anything doing so is good. Anything
preventing so is bad.
The GPL helps open source software not waste production, but it
doesn't proprietary. Therefore it's not a good idea as there are
alternatives which don't have this problem.
Who cares about the problems of people trying to make money out of
owning software and preventing access to it? That's like (to return to
an Oekonux theme) the workers worrying about the problems of the ruling
classes, and the hardships of their life.
cheers, Rich.
--
rich walker | technical person | Shadow Robot Company | rw shadow.org.uk
front-of-tshirt space to let 251 Liverpool Road |
London N1 1LX | +UK 20 7700 2487
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/