Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.

Re: proprietary doesn't bother me

Author:David McCusker
Posted:9/10/2000; 1:21:28 PM
Topic:Guido and Richard
Msg #:21116 (In response to 21115)
Prev/Next:21115 / 21117

Eric Kidd: On the other hand, if the window manager used the XFree86 (or new BSD) license, then RedHat could make a proprietary version.

When I give out software the license resembles BSD, and might as well be Dave Winer's hypothetical "no crybabies" license.

RedHat could make a proprietary version, and I don't care.

It's not a problem if someone uses my free software to make proprietary software. It's no skin off my nose. And if it bothers someone else, I don't give a damn. Or in some cases, I'm pleased if it pisses someone off that it's possible to make a proprietary version.

If someone uses my software to further hate crime, or kiddy porn, or any number of other reprehensible things in addition to proprietary software, this is also not a problem (even if I don't approve).

As long as the proprietary software folks leave me alone, I don't mind. They must fight sliding into an evolutionary dead end all the time, and I don't, so I don't worry much about long term competition.

(Please note I agree with Dave Winer that commercial software is not the same thing as proprietary software. Commercial has to do with being a going business concern with cash flow, and doesn't imply a closed or antisocial technological model.)

I don't expect to have proprietary softare folks eat my lunch, and keep me from benefiting from my work, because as a group they are not very bright. This is because proprietary enterprises must often hire from a pool of talent that includes folks motivated primarily by money, and this dilutes the somewhat smaller pool of folks motivated by anything more subtle.

This doesn't mean I think that desiring money implies lack of intelligence. It means I know the bell curve is bigger in the middle, and the draw of money sucks in a larger portion of the bell curve below the sweet spot on the intelligence/technology curve. In other words, the techno gold rush has lowered the average intelligence in the practitioners in the industry.

As a result, companies that chase the buck have an uphill battle to staff up with brighter folks, so they have a natural disadvantage. Of course, as a side effect it also means the industry now involves a lot more lawyers than it did before, as they follow fights over money. And this poisons the well for everyone. But I don't see why that means I have to chase the buck with a vengeance too, just so I can fight fire with fire. (Why don't we just all arm ourselves with nukes and blow ourselves up?)

There are responses to this message:

This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:36 PM.

© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.