Richard Stallman is responsible for the shrinking economy

Of course not.

With a closed-source binary, we can try all permutations of USB drivers, dongle drivers and debugger drivers that we can get hold of (and that's exactly what we did). Anything beyond that is impossible.

With an open-source program, we can start by instrumenting allocation / disallocation syscalls, and look for the mismatch. Narrow it down step by step, until we find the missing disallocation that causes Windows to run out of kernel RAM. Just like we do when debugging our own software. Honestly, I've put my head much too far into things I shouldn't have to care about, I'm quite certain I could have solved that together with my coworkers. Now we just have a permutation of drivers that usually happens to work for an 8-hour work day, and don't know why.

Of course it can take a day or two to get the open-source thing to compile at all. But I'm quite certain we've lost much more than one or two days to dongle problems.

So far the minimum seems to be filling out lengthy forms (aka performing data striptease). Some will then give you a demo, some will after reviewing it by a human. And others only have "call us and we'll make a deal" (which includes signing contracts).

For open-source, you grab a tarball and are ready to go. And it's not a crippled demo, it's the real thing.

The GPL does not restrict your rights in running software, whereas running it usually is the only right you get for closed-source. So the GPL cannot be "highly restrictive" compared to closed-source.

Stefan

Reply to
Stefan Reuther
Loading thread data ...

Oh I don't know, I am totally unfamiliar with legal stuff. Yet perhaps it can happen - sort of like say writers protect their authored material, it is out there and easy to steal but since anyone can notice it has been stolen people do not get away with it. Once the society has matured enough so programming is an integral part of basic literacy, this will work for software as well, I suppose.

Dimiter

------------------------------------------------------ Dimiter Popoff Transgalactic Instruments

formatting link

------------------------------------------------------

formatting link

Original message:

formatting link

Reply to
didi

Larger companies actually work hard to INCREASE the barriers for entries in the marketplace, because it profits them to do so. I had a personal discussion, some years back, with one of the VPs at Intel. (I can, but right now see no need to mention his name.) _Part_ of the motivation of reflection wave PCI wasn't just "green," and in fact there was an explicit, on the table, desire to increase the barriers for motherboard manufacturers so that there would be less competition. The tools required to get into the PCI marketplace were, especially early on, VERY EXPENSIVE -- on the order of $100k -- as he told me. And that is exactly what they wanted, because it would kill the mom and pop competition.

There were other stories he told me of a very similar nature. But the above is sufficient to get the point across. Some companies WANT high barriers. It profits them to have fewer people competing. In Intel's case, this wasn't something they left to random chance -- they worked with earnestness and sincerity to reduce their competition.

All the same arguments remain, though. What Intel sought wasn't necessarily ONLY about reducing their competition for higher profits

-- it was also about having enough profit in the end to invest in advanced technologies, too. So one can argue, and Walter does here, that perhaps advances have been stymied in part because of the lower barriers to entry. And perhaps there is an argument to that. Where you come down on this will depend on what you consider to be the better paths towards your higher principles. One might argue equally well that the kind of innovation sought is better achieved by more people getting a chance to field a product, than by having fewer companies with larger piles of R&D money to invest. Or you might argue that the kind of innovation required can ONLY be achieved by having sufficient R&D cash in the hands of just a few. If you are talking about FABs and innovation in the IC marketplace, you might take the latter position. If you are talking about software, then it is certainly possible to take the former... though I can see some taking the latter on that one, too.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

Sadly, and patent attorneys I've spoken with appear to confirm this, the existing system in the US no longer serves small players. It serves Microsoft's and others with deep pockets. It's a playing field small time folks cannot rely on. So they tell me. (This was the gist of a personal conversation [paid for, by the way] with the most prestigious, most expensive patent attorney group in Portland, Oregon.)

Which brings us back to the question regarding ease of entry by small time people wanting a shot at it.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

Agreed. If only that were so in the US.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

crit :

its

IMHO Free Software (the original "topic" of this thread) has nothing to do with "reducing market, valueless software an programmers ..." and others deliriums.

Software (Free Software included) has a *commercial* value in itself when it gives a solution for specific problem for specifics customers . What did not well understood by Poets of computer science.

Speaking of the IMMENSE contributions of Free Software is almost a philosophical topic which obviously has nothing to do with the poets named above.

Finaly I'm quite sure you understand what Free Software is, that's why i though you wanted to launch a nonsense controversy.

Habib

Reply to
arachnoid

No, it values programming ability. If you were unable to read, you would need to hire someone to read the evening newspaper, Usenet, etc. to you. You would expect to pay him/her. You would not expect to pay exorbitant rates for the newspaper.

It also encourages spreading the knowledge, much as the patent system (before it was misused) was intended to.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

He is approving of your (quoted) comment. Bravo implies applause.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

You misread the purpose of GPL. It ensures that the material covered can be freely used, and that the user cannot appropriate that material as his own, thus maintaining the freedom. And note that GPL is different from GPC, in that it is designed to make libraries source available without unduly restricting the user program.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

Jon this may be out of context so I kept the context as well

I am arguing for protecting innovation in a way that will encourage taking risks for new innovation. Some software innovation will happen with an individual in a basement with a laptop, and some innovative requires test code of several hundred thousand lines of code and a testing period of close to a decade. I have been involved in both. The art can be advanced with both forms of innovation.

Some innovation (often the innovation that is a game changer) requires a lot of risk. The classic example of this is the business model of FedEx.

Most innovation attempts fail. The reward must be large enough to encourage innovation to happen accounting for the failures and the successes. One way that this can happen is exclusive use for a period of time.

Jon's comment refers to the price pressure exceptions of free tools. This price pressure reduces the potential reward and changes the risk that we can afford to invest in a new approaches to our products. Surprisingly it actually forces increase in prices rather than the alternative, further separating those who have access to innovative solutions. Before I get flamed for this counter intuitive comment run a simple Monte Carlo simulation of both business models and plot risk vs reward including extending cases that account for customers best interests.

Regards,

-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited

formatting link

Reply to
Walter Banks

It was positive.

w.

Reply to
Walter Banks

... snip ...

Good. Then I assume we can finally assume the cessasation of the exposition of this ridiculous anti-FOSS attitude?

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

For example: the existance of 'GNU-Linux', which requires both the Linux OS and the great expanse of GNU software, all of which is available under GPC and GPL. I can also point you to my download page.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

... snip ...

You misspelled 'permissive'.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

Patents are only one approach. Copyright law can serve the interests of small players very well. Basic protection costs nothing and registered copyrights are inexpensive. Copyrights are currently the most powerful protection for for software and unlike patents last for a lifetime plus.

Regards,

-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited

formatting link

Reply to
Walter Banks

... snip ...

I have been producing free (and non-free) software for over 40 years, while working for quite a variety of firms. In general the business of the firms was NOT to produce free software. There was never a marketing ploy. Incidentally, I was paid at a quite respectable rate.

In general, I designed both hardware and software. The software replaced the hardware gradually, but never completely. Before 1965 I dealt almost exclusively with hardware.

IMO I have had three developments that really should have made me extremely rich. The reasons they didn't have been analyzed (by me). Two were largely software, and two had heavy hardware connections. One was almost purely software. Note that the 'reasons' had nothing to do with free software.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

... snip ...

Not so. Even if we limit ourselves to the English speaking countries, primarily the US, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia, New Zealand, we see a distressing tendency to use unsafe systems, such as Microsoft OSs.

Incidentally, there is no need to release the source of FOSS, it is already released. The requirement is to release modifications, and sometimes ancilliary software.

--
 [mail]: Chuck F (cbfalconer at maineline dot net) 
 [page]: 
 Click to see the full signature
Reply to
CBFalconer

Yes, I tried to address both of these in my comments. I may not do that as well as you.

Indeed.

What this misses (washes over, without even giving it a nod) is that it may NOT be the same innovator here. If it were the case that the same organization did some kind of "shotgun" approach to innovation, then what you write makes sense. The return on a few of those must compensate for the costs of all the other trials and errors. But that works when it is the same source of capital -- the same company or sufficiently wealthy individual who can afford the repeated investments.

The reality is more complex. Large companies don't take all the risks

-- in fact, they often WAIT and let others do that, then using their muscle to take over the market. I can provide at least three case studies on this, but it also includes some conversations with owners of large corporations and small ones -- one in particular comes to mind, someone who started his own EXCELLENT company with great innovations -- which I still marvel at -- and where Microsoft's team came down for a visit. I spoke with him at length about that visit, some years ago. His story shed a lot of light for me.

Yes. I only wish that the US patent system weren't so broken.

Actually, I tend to feel glad that there is room for a wide variety of models -- much wider than earlier on. It's the diversity itself which heartens me, at times. The patent system is a mess, especially as it applies to new, small innovators (shambles.) But a variety of options remains and I'm glad for some of that. More choices means that consumers have a better chance to find a closer fit to their own particular circumstances. And that's a good thing.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

I don't find that to be true in the areas I work, Walter. But I don't sell software. My area is in instrumentation. For example, I only this last week came up with something that depends on a unique discovery investigating some mathematical surfaces related to the sensor physics of my expertise. It is new. I know this, because I know the field like only two or three others do. But the methods to apply this (take advantage of this unique knowledge) are entirely in the software domain, the hardware is essentially bog standard stuff. Useful protection will not arrive by copyright, it needs to be a patent. However, in the current circumstances the only way that will be meaningful is if I find a large company to work with where they have the muscle.

Jon

Reply to
Jon Kirwan

Don't read into what I didn't say. There are no guarantees, each risk has a reward outcome that depends on experience, technology, investment, attention to detail, marketing and timing. The equation does not change, there are companies that specialize in innovation (like mine) and companies that have a single product based in a single innovation.

There are some project risks now that 15 years ago would have been taken and now are not. The equation has been changing the last few months. There are tremendous opportunities now that a year ago didn't exist.

As the world especially the US is changing from wealth growth to asset growth innovation produces tangible assets giving it value beyond immediate sales. There is less price pressure and more companies are taking bold risks, they have nothing to lose. (Supernova effect)

Some of these companies will fail, some will find new life. It is times like this that many major new ideas emerge.

Regards,

-- Walter Banks Byte Craft Limited

formatting link

Reply to
Walter Banks

ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.