Re: ``Nothing like a monopoly to get investors to cheer you

[stan johnson <sjohnson@gwi.net>]

** Reply to note from brett@lariat.org Mon, 9 Nov 1998 20:18:09   
-0500 (EST) 
 
who wrote: 
 
>    
> At 04:45 PM 11/9/98 -0500, Mitch Stone wrote: 
>    
> >The more the  
> >"benefits" of proprietary standardization are demonstrated to be  
> >fallacious, the more difficult it will be for Microsoft to convince the  
> >buying public that they're the only way to go. As far as I'm   
concerned,  
> >every alternative cracks that wall. 
>    
> In that case, I'm sure you'd agree that the more alternatives there 
> are, the better. 
>    
> 
> We 
> have seen examples -- on this list -- of situations where Linux has 
> drawn venture capital away from potential alternatives. 
 
Show some reason to believe that this capital would have gone to   
some other competing alternative in the software market.  
 
Other than Linux, it is hard to see any promising operating system   
alternatives offering a realistic hope of gaining significant market   
share. No venture capitalist is likely to invest major funds in a bet   
against M$ if there is no demonstrably viable growth alternative.  
 
What _has_ happened is that major proprietary companies are allying   
themselves with Linux by making proprietary software available for   
that platform. (Some free, certainly, some not.) Or otherwise   
supporting the platform, undoubtedly at some cost to them. 
 
 And where 
> the GPL has prevented individuals from basing new alternatives on 
> it. 
 
No. Only if they wish to market *proprietary* alternatives. 
 
>    
> This is the real problem with the GPL, you see. It takes -- in the 
> form of arguably predatory pricing --  
 
But you'll forgive this "predatory pricing" so long as you can take the   
code and use it to serve your proprietary aims. That's a principalled   
stance, for sure. 
 
but does not give back in the 
> form of code that's usable by those who want to create new 
> alternatives.  
 
Yes, it does. It only excludes *proprietary* alternatives. 
 
You don't have to be a rabid zealot to see what this 
> can lead to: less choice for all of us. 
 
Nonsense.  
 
If you or anyone else wishes to create, do so. Absolutely no-one is   
preventing you. 
 
If someone wants to give you their code, they'll do so. You have no   
ethical right to try to coerce them to do so. 
 
>    
> I want as many choices as possible, and want to see creative 
> entrepreneurs flourish.  
 
That's your proprietary bag. Others may choose to agree or not, as   
they wish. 
 
Hence, I oppose not the concept of free 
> software but rather the  concept of free software whose source 
> can't be exploited to create more  alternatives -- commercial as 
> well as free. 
 
If you don't like the idea of free source code that can't be used to   
generate proprietary code, don't release any of your code that way.   
Nobody is restricting your choices. Why do you arrrogate the right to   
attempt to restrict others'? 
  
>    
> So, in fact, I think you'll agree that Linux and the GPL are actually 
> detrimental to what we both want: to maximize choice. 
 
The GPL has fostered the development of Linux, the only successful   
alternative in view.  
 
It works.  
 
It's increased choice by a quantum leap. You put yourself in the   
untenable position of arguing that a process that has worked when   
the alternative has failed, should nonetheless be discarded. I don't   
think the enthusiasts that created and continue to improve Linux are   
likely to buy that nonsequitor.  
 
Stan

-- 
Stan Johnson    TeamOS/2
sjohnson@gwi.net