Hi,
These are not the same exact words each of us have talked, but it does express his inability to understand the motivation behind free software...
Boss: Does GPL really allow someone to use commercially the output of a program? Me: Sure, it's even in the GNU GPL FA... Boss: Yes, I've just read it. Me: [surprised] so? Boss: I've been looking at Nessus[1], and it does some pretty good job, so good, that you can earn a lot of money with a default audit check from nessus. It is unfair that you can exploit so much money from it without having to pay anything. How do they live off? I don't think their rights are well protected by the GNU GPL.
I went on trying to explain that they have made nessus on their free time, and probably as a funny project, and/or as a way to reduce the ammount of repetitive work they may have to do at work (I know I'm going to use nessus reports to kick away some windows servers at work in favour of gnu/linux systems). They also can make money by using nessus on local companies, and they probably do.
However, my boss wasn't moved... not even when I told him some of the examples even recently cited on this mailing list... tactics to make people pay for a copy... geez, I'm lucky I'm a sysadmin and not a developer here!
It is, however, hard to make someone understand free software when they can't understand that the ulterior motives may not be money.
Sure they need to make money to live in our current society and it is indeed harder to make big bucks with free software. Nonetheless, the easy way is imo immoral and doomed in time.
I really want to make a "free software only" company in one or two years time here in Portugal so I can live off free software commercially... I just hope I can fullfill such wish!
Hugs, Rui
Editor's notes: [1] www.nessus.org -- security scanner, winner of a comparison among free and proprietary scanners last year
El Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:22:06PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra deia:
Boss: Does GPL really allow someone to use commercially the output of a program?
I don't understand. Most licenses allow the output of a program to be used commercially. I wonder whether you can forbid it. Even Microsoft allows Word documents to be printed and sent to customers or providers...
Me: Sure, it's even in the GNU GPL FA... Boss: Yes, I've just read it. Me: [surprised] so? Boss: I've been looking at Nessus[1], and it does some pretty good job, so good, that you can earn a lot of money with a default audit check from nessus. It is unfair that you can exploit so much money from it without having to pay anything. How do they live off? I don't think their rights are well protected by the GNU GPL.
So it is fair that I write a program once and get paid many times? One for each copy?. Why should the income not be related to the work done and only to the number of copies licensed?. Is it fair that I have to rewrite a program already done because I'm not allowed to adapt it to my needs?. One thing is having doubts about whether they can get enough money to keep going, but doubts about whether it is fair to use a GPL program?.
I went on trying to explain that they have made nessus on their free time, and probably as a funny project, and/or as a way to reduce the ammount of repetitive work they may have to do at work (I know I'm going to use nessus reports to kick away some windows servers at work in favour of gnu/linux systems). They also can make money by using nessus on local companies, and they probably do.
What sport does your boss practice?. Come on it isn't fair to sweat and get tired for no money at all, even paying for it some times... :)
However, my boss wasn't moved... not even when I told him some of the examples even recently cited on this mailing list... tactics to make people pay for a copy... geez, I'm lucky I'm a sysadmin and not a developer here!
The thing may be to make him think not of how much did they earn from using GPL but how much did it cost them. Nothing (assuming they needed the program or had enough motivation to write it).
It is, however, hard to make someone understand free software when they can't understand that the ulterior motives may not be money.
Money is never a motive. Or at least it shouldn't be for any sane person. It can't be because money is so abstract that it means nothing. And when your motives mean nothing to you, you're in trouble.
I once tried with my CFO and he couldn't reply (or thought I wasn't worth a reply, who knows). I was trying to explain that money is not an end but a mean. A company objective is not to make money. It is to sell pizzas, write software, grow potatoes or paint walls, but not making money. Making money is a prerequisite for the company existance, not a goal. You don't live to breathe, you breathe to keep alive.
What I told him then was (something similar to):
-Why aren't we trafficking drugs (illegal drugs)?. It is more profitable than what we do... - But it's illegal. - So the goal is not to make money anymore. Now it is to make money legally? - Well, yes, of course. - So why don't we open a restaurant. Don't they make money?. - Sure, but we are not cooks here. - But if our goal is to make money, who cares what we are?. - Well, we make money our way. - So our way. Now the goal is to make money our way?. - Er... - So why don't we admit our goal is to be something or do something "our way", and making money is just a need, just like raw materials are needed in a factory but the goal of the factory is not to get raw materials?
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 00:13, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
El Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:22:06PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra deia:
Boss: Does GPL really allow someone to use commercially the output of a program?
I don't understand. Most licenses allow the output of a program to be used commercially. I wonder whether you can forbid it. Even Microsoft allows Word documents to be printed and sent to customers or providers...
I told him that, but in his reasoning, you had paid for Word...
One thing is having doubts about whether they can get enough money to keep going, but doubts about whether it is fair to use a GPL program?
His doubpts are if it is fair to have so much work, and then some smart ass company makes a lot of money and not pay the developer for anything... that's where he considers it unfair -- I couldn't demove him from that point of view :(
Cheers...
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 01:56, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra wrote:
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 00:13, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
El Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:22:06PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra deia:
Boss: Does GPL really allow someone to use commercially the output of a program?
I don't understand. Most licenses allow the output of a program to be used commercially. I wonder whether you can forbid it. Even Microsoft allows Word documents to be printed and sent to customers or providers...
I told him that, but in his reasoning, you had paid for Word...
And so? MS ripped lot of free code and put it in their Software without contributing nothing back! Is it yet fair to use MS programs? Shouldn't your boss regret to buy something from such unfair seller??
One thing is having doubts about whether they can get enough money to keep going, but doubts about whether it is fair to use a GPL program?
His doubpts are if it is fair to have so much work, and then some smart ass company makes a lot of money and not pay the developer for anything... that's where he considers it unfair -- I couldn't demove him from that point of view :(
The developers _choosed_ to do so, they know that and they take they reward as fame and code contributed back! If he thinks GPL is so bad, what about BSD? With BSD you can not only make money but also proprietarize the code!! Your boss must think it is a tragedy!
Simo.
Il mer, 2002-03-20 alle 01:56, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra ha scritto:
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 00:13, Xavi Drudis Ferran wrote:
El Tue, Mar 19, 2002 at 11:22:06PM +0000, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra deia:
Boss: Does GPL really allow someone to use commercially the output of a program?
I don't understand. Most licenses allow the output of a program to be used commercially. I wonder whether you can forbid it. Even Microsoft allows Word documents to be printed and sent to customers or providers...
I told him that, but in his reasoning, you had paid for Word...
One thing is having doubts about whether they can get enough money to keep going, but doubts about whether it is fair to use a GPL program?
His doubpts are if it is fair to have so much work, and then some smart ass company makes a lot of money and not pay the developer for anything...
Hey, hey, please: don't be offensive. It is definitely fair as far as the developer is free to reuse other's free sofware code ;-)
At the end of the story, succesfull companies will be those who sell their competence, not program licenses. If you are not competent in (at least) using and supporting a free sofware application, your customer will turn to your competitors. On the other hand, succesful developers are those who use their competence: you cannot just shake a bounch of free software code and obtain "The Perfect Application" for a particular need. Also, the world is full of developers who doesn't consider money "the matter", there are a lot of *other* motivations to develop (and in general to do other things in life like Xavi Drudis Ferran excellently pointed out in this thread)
Last but not least, it should be definitely good if conscious companies and individuals helps free software development the way they can afford: by founding[1], developing[2], advocating[3] and so on; so that free sofwware developers can... breathe.
that's where he considers it unfair -- I couldn't demove him from that point of view :(
Lets try first to convince him that seldom developers earns money by selling software licensens; indeed, "The Lords of Money" (would you call them smart ass companies???) makes a lot of money and don't pay the developers the same way they get paid. Also, seldom developers becomes "Lords of Money" ;-)
Lateral thinking???
Ciao.
[1] because a certain amount of money in a prerequisite to live [2] because free sofware is a prerequisite to other free software [3] because social recognition is ego appeasing and makes you feel alive
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 09:58, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
Il mer, 2002-03-20 alle 01:56, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra ha scritto:
His doubpts are if it is fair to have so much work, and then some smart ass company makes a lot of money and not pay the developer for anything...
Hey, hey, please: don't be offensive.
lol, a company that qualifies as 'smart ass' probably deserves it. Microsoft would be one (as you noticed). Anyway, this wasn't being offensive. It is a common term for "smartness with lesser than good intentions".
It is definitely fair as far as the developer is free to reuse other's free sofware code ;-)
At the end of the story, succesfull companies will be those who sell their competence, not program licenses. If you are not competent in (at least) using and supporting a free sofware application, your customer will turn to your competitors.
If there is free competition yes. When there isn't you actually hold hostage costumers untill they realize they are being victims.
On the other hand, succesful developers are those who use their competence: you cannot just shake a bounch of free software code and obtain "The Perfect Application" for a particular need. Also, the world is full of developers who doesn't consider money "the matter", there are a lot of *other* motivations to develop (and in general to do other things in life like Xavi Drudis Ferran excellently pointed out in this thread)
Of course, we all know that, we all agree on that. Great. That's beside the point however, since he doesn't. :)
Last but not least, it should be definitely good if conscious companies and individuals helps free software development the way they can afford: by founding[1], developing[2], advocating[3] and so on; so that free sofwware developers can... breathe.
It's always hard to start a market!
that's where he considers it unfair -- I couldn't demove him from that point of view :(
Lets try first to convince him that seldom developers earns money by selling software licensens; indeed, "The Lords of Money" (would you call them smart ass companies???) makes a lot of money and don't pay the developers the same way they get paid. Also, seldom developers becomes "Lords of Money" ;-)
Remember, I didn't say it explicitly, but it's quite obvious that this is a software house, of some sort. You must think like him to understand that: If we had made nessus [as GPL'ed software], other comeptitors would be able to make a lot of money without paying us.
In this way of thinking, how can you argue properly?
Well I have to go. tata.
Hugs, rui
Il mer, 2002-03-20 alle 11:07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra ha scritto:
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 09:58, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
Il mer, 2002-03-20 alle 01:56, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra ha scritto:
[...]
At the end of the story, succesfull companies will be those who sell their competence, not program licenses. If you are not competent in (at least) using and supporting a free sofware application, your customer will turn to your competitors.
If there is free competition yes.
In the free software market free competition is the only available competition (as far as *they* let us work... SSCA, software patents, etc.)
When there isn't
Thus, in non-free software market
you actually hold hostage costumers untill they realize they are being victims.
I agree.
[...]
It's always hard to start a market!
A market isn't started. It exists.
that's where he considers it unfair -- I couldn't demove him from that point of view :(
Lets try first to convince him that seldom developers earns money by selling software licensens; indeed, "The Lords of Money" (would you call them smart ass companies???) makes a lot of money and don't pay the developers the same way they get paid. Also, seldom developers becomes "Lords of Money" ;-)
Remember, I didn't say it explicitly, but it's quite obvious that this is a software house, of some sort. You must think like him to understand that: If we had made nessus [as GPL'ed software], other comeptitors would be able to make a lot of money without paying us.
What's the problem? They *are* able to make a lot of money with their competitors free software, too.
...unless you are a "Lord of Money" and consider competition a burden.
In this way of thinking, how can you argue properly?
Just pointing out that there is a *different* way of thinking. Someone love to call it "lateral thinking".
Ciao.
On Wed, 2002-03-20 at 12:25, Giovanni Biscuolo wrote:
Il mer, 2002-03-20 alle 11:07, Rui Miguel Silva Seabra ha scritto:
In the free software market free competition is the only available competition (as far as *they* let us work... SSCA, software patents, etc.)
I don't agree that there are either free or non free software markets. I think that they are both parts of the software market. I rather free software. Most potential costumers don't even know what free software is, so it's hard for them to break the inertia of the non free software strongholds.
It's always hard to start a market!
A market isn't started. It exists.
What I meant is that it's always hard to profit on a new market. First, it starts slowly. Then it booms, then it implodes, and finally it stabilizes. It's usually like that. I think we're on the first stage. What would be desireable is to steadily grow so we don't boom (which is fatally bounded to implosion) and so that we have a stabilized growth.
That's very hard to do!
Remember, I didn't say it explicitly, but it's quite obvious that this is a software house, of some sort. You must think like him to understand that: If we had made nessus [as GPL'ed software], other comeptitors would be able to make a lot of money without paying us.
What's the problem? They *are* able to make a lot of money with their competitors free software, too.
Well, IMHO, I think that its their short sighted view of a doomed business model that blinds them to this stuff. There, I've been trying to avoid saying this. But that is the problem. A selfish view of the market and of user's rights.
...unless you are a "Lord of Money" and consider competition a burden.
In this way of thinking, how can you argue properly?
Just pointing out that there is a *different* way of thinking. Someone love to call it "lateral thinking".
Don't you love it when they just give you a blank look in the eyes? *sigh*
Hugs, rms
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
..a certain amount of money in a prerequisite to live ..social recognition is ego appeasing and makes you feel alive
Heh damn right ! If I have the first one, I'm happy just getting the second one.
ego rules over money any day :)
*grin*
JohnFlux
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
I really want to make a "free software only" company in one or two years time here in Portugal so I can live off free software commercially... I just hope I can fullfill such wish!
Why wait? I'm trying - do it in your evenings :)
btw, I earnt about £1000 from using nessus :) Not bad for a 16 year old kid at the time...
JohnFlux