[OT] GPL, was Re: Linux and music

[Thomas Hudson]

"Phillip L. Harbison" wrote:
> 
> Thomas Hudson wrote:
> > Sean Costello wrote:
> > > [...] although some of them are released under the GPL license,
> > > which I wouldn't touch with a 10-foot pole, as it really places
> > > restrictions on any code you contribute.
> >
> > What restrictions?
> 
> If you use GPL'd code in a product, the source for that product
> must be made available at no cost (other than media and copying
> costs). 

Yes, but in the context of contributing code, the restrctions only
apply to the code you didn't write. If I write a plugin for a GPL'd
program, I must release the code under the GPL. However, as the 
original author of the plugin, I'm free to use the code under any
other license I choose.

> You can sell binary copies of GPL'd code or derived
> products, but the source must always be available free.  This
> tends to limit the amount one can charge for a product since a
> competitor can always take your source and sell copies at a
> lower price.  

This hasn't stopped RedHat from posting $20 million in revenue, or
Cygnus from doing $24 million. Competitors don't tend to come in 
until you're making a profit. By then you have established brand
loyalty and hopefully hired all the maintainers. Would you buy
support for GCC from Wind River (they also sell support for GCC)
or Cygnus, knowing that all the maintainers of GCC work for Cygnus.

> This is the price you pay for leveraging off of
> GPL'd code.  It seems fair to me since FSF's goal is to foster
> free software (free as in no limits on source distribution) and
> they do provide some neat software.  If you don't want to live
> by their rules, don't use their code.
> 
Agreed. But don't think that money can't be made from open source.
It's just a new business model. For example, if I write a universal
editor librarian and give it away, it is more likely to become a 
standard. If it is open source, other programmers will contribute,
making the program far more robust and full featured. As more people 
use it, more synth companies will want their gear supported. Thus
lucrative support contracts could be generated. Then, I'm still free
to pursue retail channels, as the average user doesn't have the ability
to grab and compile sources. Sure other businesses could then try to
sell it when they see it as profitable, but hopefully I have been 
smart about selling the name of my business. 

After all, you can buy a Redhat CD for ~$50, or buy the same CD from
http://www.cheapbytes.com for $3. Yet Redhat still does well because
of their penetration into retail markets (CompUSA, Fries, etc.)
 
Sorry, this is soft-diy or open-source-business-diy, so it is 
probably a little OT.

Thomas