Re: Tax writeoff for Open Source Developers?

[Sujal Shah <sujal@worldnet.att.net>]

Brett Glass wrote:
[SNIP]
> 
> As I have asserted many times before, software published under the
> GPL is not a public good.


Why not?

[SNIP]
> 
> IBM did not release its software under the GPL, and has endorsed Apache
> (which is also not bound by the GPL). Therefore, IBM's moves reinforce
> my assertions and provide counterexamples to your arguments.

No, they didn't.  There license, however, restricts reuse of their code
in derivative products unless those products are not charged for
(IIRC).  The Jikes license, which is the only one I read closely, was
reworked since I last saw it, but from what I've read, that part hasn't
changed.

These terms are compatible with the GPL, and the source could be used in
GPL'd projects.  Furthermore, these terms cause the same "problems" that
you claim the GPL creates.  How is it different?

[SNIP]
> 
> As one said to me over a beer a few nights ago, "Might as well take up
> plumbing."

Then your friend(s) is/are stupid, quite frankly.  I mean, the existence
of free software will NOT eliminate our jobs.  I've said this before,
and I'll say it again.  The labor breakdown in the "software" industry
favors consulting and services type software firms.  Commercial,
shrink-wrap companies are a small portion of overall programmer labor
pool.  Even if ALL of those shrink-wrap producing jobs suddenly went
away, the overall software job market would still be pretty good.  

You've never answered that, because it questions the very assumptions
you're using to support your case.  I assert that you can't answer these
facts, because your assumptions are clearly false.

Additionally, I don't think free software will ever replace commercial
software entirely.  It always lags behind a bit, feature-wise, and
there's ample room for a company to develop advances that people want. 
My belief is that if a product can be reproduced, feature for feature by
a free project, the product isn't offering anything worth paying for; it
is passee.  The company needs to innovate, not get fat off of a zero
margin product.

In a sense, what I'm saying is that it is my belief that free software
provides the "diminishing returns" which are a part of most mainstream
industries.  Eventually, people won't buy your product because you can't
make it cheaply enough to be worth it.

If this were true, and a working model, we would never have a Microsoft
again.  We'd have instead AOLs, Netscapes, Suns, and other companies who
offer more than just software with no additional worthwhile services.
(heck, Microsoft doesn't even provide SUPPORT, and often doesn't even
need to generate manuals.. the bulk of their sales don't even require
them to copy CD's... the hardware guys create and copy the images FOR
them).

Just my opinion...

Sujal

> 
> --Brett

-- 
------ Sujal Shah ---- sujal@worldnet.att.net

       http://home.att.net/~sujal/
Unite for Java! - http://www.javalobby.org