Re: Tax writeoff for Open Source Developers?

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>]

At 07:44 PM 12/20/98 -0500, Sujal Shah wrote:
 
>> As I have asserted many times before, software published under the
>> GPL is not a public good.

>Why not?

Because it puts valuable innovators, workers, and businesses OUT of 
business while giving nothing back.

>> 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.

No, he's the most brilliant person I know. He has a keen perception
of the landscape and can recognize unfair competition and predatory
tactics, whether they're executed by a large company like Microsoft
or by a loosely connected group of individuals.

>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.

In short, you're telling him that he may not be an author, build up
intellectual capital in a product, and sell it. Instead, you would
like to put him on the frustrating treadmill of consulting or reduce
him to the level of a service technician. No wonder he wants to get 
out of the field.

>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.  

Again, jobs for technicians, not creators.

>You've never answered that,

I sure have. You're simply blinded by denial and have refused to
listen.

>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. 

Not if they must start from scratch. Again, they should be allowed
to use open source as a foundation and to spare them from reinventing
the wheel when they could be innovating. The GPL seeks to keep them
on a treadmill, redoing what's already been done.

>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.  

I guess Web browsers are passee', then, as soon as Microsoft dumps one
to put Netscape out of business.

>The company needs to innovate, not get fat off of a zero
>margin product.

I see: Netscape obviously didn't innovate. Not at all. Right. Sure.

--Brett