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

[Matthew Benjamin <MBenjamin@comshare.com>]

Thanks for catching this language:  I meant 

1. Use of the LGPL or newer licenses
2. Use of proprietary software in a GNU systems software context (eg,
Linux), which is explicitly permitted
3. In some other specially permited cases, eg, the FreeODBC driver manager
to dispatch into a commercial driver to some database.

Your statement that "explosive growth doesn't prove value" is probably
true--but if explosive growth _never_ indicates value, then no evidence from
the market can be used by anyone, to say anything about what consumers want
or need.  I doubt this.

Indeed to be fair, although I might dislike Internet Explorer (your first
counterexample) and its status as a not-really-free product Microsoft makes
available to damage a competitor, I don't therefore conclude it doesn't add
value.  On the contrary, it does add value.  IE is only objectionable, if it
is objectionable, in the context of Microsoft's private monopoly.  

And I think that the network effects argument alone shows that, though NT
can be shown to be inferior to some competitors on some grounds, its
explosive growth also reflects the percieved value it delivers.  With
emphasis on "percieved."  I inform anyone who will listen that NT, like its
Microsoft antecedants, is a weak offering, and given its cost, is a great
rip-off.


Matt

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Eric Bennett [SMTP:ericb@pobox.com]
> Sent:	Tuesday, November 10, 1998 1:14 PM
> To:	MBenjamin@comshare.com
> Subject:	RE: ``Nothing like a monopoly to get investors to cheer you
> 
> Matthew Benjamin wrote:
> 
> > That this software is innovative and useful, is
> > self-evident from the explosive growth of Linux.
> 
> Hmmm, this "logic" sounds strangely familiar.
> 
> That Internet Explorer is innovative and useful is self-evident from its
> explosive growth.
> 
> That Microsoft NetShow is innovative and useful is self-evident from its
> explosive growth.
> 
> That Windows NT is innovative and useful is self-evident from its
> explosive growth.
> 
> etc. etc. etc.
> 
> 
> 
> > These companies have found that free software--and a software industry
> > revitalized by open source--can be leveraged to gain marketshare and
> > permanently associate their brand with an open product which enables
> their
> > own, proprietary products--along with a host of other products consumers
> > want, free and non-free.  These projects leverage two post-GNU
> developments:
> 
> That is true, but it also means that those companies won't be giving
> away their important products, so that does limit the benefit somewhat.
> 
> > 1. Blends of GPL'd, LGPL'd, and proprietary code
> 
> How do you manage that?  Combining GPLed code with other code brings the
> other code under the terms of the GPL.  (And if it's being done through
> a separate non-GPL license, then I'd dispute the claim that it's really
> 'GPLed code'.)
> 
> Having said these things, though, I do agree with your basic belief that
> Brett is being too negative.
> 
> -- 
> Eric Bennett ( ericb@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb )
> Department of Chemistry, Cornell University
> 377 S.T. Olin Chemistry Lab
> 
> Mr. Gates needs a memory upgrade.
> -Mitchell Pettit, Executive Director, ProComp