Conspiracy Theory

[John E]

The unpalatable truth is that you failed to define precisely what you mean by "Linux" [...] Considering the phrase "Linux apps", I think that this is what you are talking about.

Yes - what I mean is that Linux grows and extends itself by utilising libraries and applications which (for the most part) developers have to provide for free.

Your argument has actually been applied to more permissive licenses, so I am rather surprised that you chose to focus on the GPL.

You answered this yourself, Laserlight....

It is the set of licenses that is probably the most dominant among Free Software/Open Source Software projects.

It also happens to be the license that I'm most familiar with. and here's what I mean by "undercutting"....

they have to publish their modifications under the GPL, which you can thus incorporate back into your own work, thus you will not be "undercut".

Nice theory - but who said anything about modifications? Let's say you wanted to charge $50 for some great app you've written and distributed under the GPL agreement. The agreement entitles you to make such a charge but there's nothing to stop anyone else from taking your source code and - without making any modifications whatsoever - selling the very same app for just $5, or even giving it away for free. You as the author of the work can do nothing whatsoever to prevent this. And that's why I believe that the license is exploitative.

[laserlight]

Nice theory - but who said anything about modifications? Let's say you wanted to charge $50 for some great app you've written and distributed under the GPL agreement. The agreement entitles you to make such a charge but there's nothing to stop anyone else from taking your source code and - without making any modifications whatsoever - selling the very same app for just $5, or even giving it away for free. You as the author of the work can do nothing whatsoever to prevent this. And that's why I believe that the license is exploitative.

Nice theory - but it just shows that if your business model is to sell software in that way, then making it Free Software/Open Source Software is a bad choice. It does not show that "the license is exploitative".

Granted, some companies are able to make money selling such software in that way, but then they are also banking on their "brand name" as original producers (or simply experts) of the software, i.e., they are most likely to provide the best support, and perhaps you will be unable to get their support if you obtain duplicated copies of the software from third parties, and thus have to rely on community support or possibly inferior support from third parties.

[HanneSThEGreaT]

The only thing I hate about Windows 7 is the fact that IE 8 comes with it

[laserlight]

The only thing I hate about Windows 7 is the fact that IE 8 comes with it

From the point of view of someone who does a little web design (or rather, translates web design into client side code), I would rather have Windows 7 come with IE 8 than an earlier version of IE, even though it would be better if it just came with either the web browser of my choice, or no web browser at all

[HanneSThEGreaT]

From the point of view of someone who does a little web design (or rather, translates web design into client side code), I would rather have Windows 7 come with IE 8 than an earlier version of IE, even though it would be better if it just came with either the web browser of my choice, or no web browser at all

Obviously The latest Browser had to be shipped with the latest OS. I, too dab at Web designing every now and then. What I was trying to say is that IE 8, IMHO, is not better than IE 7. Yes, it has lots of new exciting features, but I find it quite annoying to say the least. Happy with IE 7. I am very happy with Windows 7, especially after I had Vista for far too long.

[Joeman]

Also if you are the owner of the gpl code, you can easily license it again under a new license if it is your code. Otherwise you need to ask for a new license and good luck with that.

I will stick to firefox and keep my eye on chrome . I sure hope windows 7 isn't another vista. I know it is using vista's code base .

Does it ask 50 questions about permissions? Like: Are you sure you want to do this? Are you still sure? Did this install right? You want to run this with admin rights? Okay, but click okay one more time. Do you want to copy this? Click the checkbox if you want to overwrite these files without me asking again. Click again for ... the other reason you can't copy a file... and it goes on and on and on and on . Sure it helps you until you keep clicking "YES!" and you click "YES!" one too many times

[laserlight]

bviously The latest Browser had to be shipped with the latest OS. I, too dab at Web designing every now and then. What I was trying to say is that IE 8, IMHO, is not better than IE 7. Yes, it has lots of new exciting features, but I find it quite annoying to say the least. Happy with IE 7.

I have not really experienced problems getting IE 7 to play nicely with layouts that work nicely in other browsers, but I did come across a theme for a CMS-type application that worked well in IE8, Firefox and other browsers, but was glitchy in IE 7. It may or may not have been IE 7's fault, but it sure felt like it, especially since the theme designers stated that they only supported recent versions of web browsers.

Does it ask 50 questions about permissions?

No, but it does ask maybe 10 questions or so about permissions, but I can live with that since the questions tend to be more sensible than what Vista asked about.

[John E]

Nice theory - but it just shows that if your business model is to sell software in that way, then making it Free Software/Open Source Software is a bad choice. It does not show that "the license is exploitative".

Fair point I suppose but my point about the license is that it grants the author an entitlement which he will probably only find out later that he cannot enforce. To my mind, that constitutes exploitation but I guess others may differ.

On the subject of Windows 7 though... I just made the decision today to buy it (although I haven't yet made a purchase). Anyone know about this outfit who claim to be selling the full version of Windows 7 Ultimate for less than $120? That's a huge discount on the typical price here in the UK.

The catch seems to be that you only get a download version with no CD or documentation. Looks fishy to me.... I've never known any previous version of Windows that didn't ask to see the install CD at some point.

[laserlight]

Fair point I suppose but my point about the license is that it grants the author an entitlement which he will probably only find out later that he cannot enforce.

What do you mean by the license "grants the author an entitlement"?

The catch seems to be that you only get a download version with no CD or documentation. Looks fishy to me.... I've never known any previous version of Windows that didn't ask to see the install CD at some point.

I had a laptop which had Windows pre-installed but with no CD, although they did provide a recovery partition. But yes, it sounds fishy to me too.

[Arjay]

I sure hope windows 7 isn't another vista. I know it is using vista's code base .

All the versions of NT based Windows are built upon from the previous versions. It's been this way since NT 3.1. You don't expect a company to totally rewrite each software version from scratch do you?

[John E]

What do you mean by the license "grants the author an entitlement"?

The basic principle that underpins the GPL (and many other "free software" licenses) is that the word "free" does not mean "free of charge". "Free" software means that you must grant the recipient all the same rights and freedoms that the license granted to you, without restriction. Unfortunately, that means that you only ever get one realistic opportunity to enforce payment for the software - that being the very first time you release it. Any recipient can use the software in any way they see fit - which includes using it to deprive you of further income.

Of course, you're right to say that users may prefer to pay you rather than someone else (e.g. because they believe they'll get better support from you) but after that first distribution, there's very little you can do to force further users to pay for the software - even though (in theory) you are entitled to receive payment.

[Joeman]

All the versions of NT based Windows are built upon from the previous versions. It's been this way since NT 3.1. You don't expect a company to totally rewrite each software version from scratch do you?

Actually depends on what software company you refer to. Some actually use this method. I was just implying vista sucked.

[laserlight]

The basic principle that underpins the GPL (and many other "free software" licenses) is that the word "free" does not mean "free of charge". "Free" software means that you must grant the recipient all the same rights and freedoms that the license granted to you, without restriction.

Oh, I see what you mean now. Yes, although that may not be exactly what "free" means in this context (a more common saying is "free as in speech, not as in beer"), that is what the GPL and other reciprocal licenses are supposed to enforce. However, what made me confused is that you said that it is the license that grants the author an entitlement, but that is not the case: it is the author, as copyright owner, that is making the license grant. If the author is entitled to payment, it is intrinsically due to the hard work that he/she put in.

[Joeman]

Also you could switch licenses. Its your code, if you don't want it public, why bother with gpl( general public license ). Just write your own license then

[John E]

Well again, the GPL is perhaps deficient here. It does grant to the author the exclusive right to distribute the software under multiple licenses (a right which is never granted to any recipient) but only if the author is the copyright holder for all of the licensed work. But given that most GPL licensed apps will contain contain code from other sources, this is another right that's difficult to achieve in practise. It's not impossible - but certainly difficult.