[LAD] RAUL?

[Pedro Alves]

On Wednesday 16 November 2011 11:16:51, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
> On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:40:36PM +0300, Louigi Verona wrote:
> > "The reason for turning something into proprietary
> > is money."
> > 
> > Not necessarily. To be more general - the reason to turn something into
> > proprietary is to have control
> > over people who use your application. Whether you want to use that control
> > to extract money or do something
> > else is your choice.
> 
> The final goal of a commercial firm is to make money. We are
> not talking culture here but business. And for me, to make
> money by selling something other people need and are prepared
> to pay for is perfectly OK as long as the game is played to
> fair rules. Which means you pay the people who contributed
> to creating whatever you sell. I'm pretty sure that the bloke
> at MikrosImage who contacted me is not working for free, yet
> he expects me to do exactly that.

Say ACME Co. builds a hardware meter device that includes
your GPL code, and has huge success selling it and make a 
buckload of money off of your work.  Yet, assume they'll fully
comply with the GPL.  They'll also never pay you for your _already
existing_ GPL code.

Would you be okay with such a use of your code?  If not, then
it sounds like GPL isn't the license you want to use on your
code.

Louigi wrote:

> Money is irrelevant in this regard.

I'd say instead that "Money is _independent/orthogonal_ in this regard".

From <http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html>

 “Commercial”

 Please don't use “commercial” as a synonym for “nonfree.” That confuses two 
 entirely different issues.

 A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity. A commercial program 
 can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner of distribution.  Likewise, a program 
 developed by a school or an individual can be free or nonfree, depending on its manner 
 of distribution. The two questions—what sort of entity developed the program and 
 what freedom its users have—are independent.

 In the first decade of the free software movement, free software packages were almost 
 always noncommercial; the components of the GNU/Linux operating system were developed 
 by individuals or by nonprofit organizations such as the FSF and universities. 
 Later, in the 1990s, free commercial software started to appear.

 Free commercial software is a contribution to our community, so we should encourage it. 
 But people who think that “commercial” means “nonfree” will tend to think that 
 the “free commercial” combination is self-contradictory, and dismiss the 
 possibility. Let's be careful not to use the word “commercial” in that way.

> 
> The code in this case was the set of algorithms used in Ebumeter.
> Let's have a look at what it takes to write this.
> 
> * Obtain, study and fully understand the relevant ITU and EBU
>   documents.
> 
> * Work out a set of algorithms that implement them in a practical
>   way (which means some minimal requirements on efficiency, both
>   CPU and memory, and portability).
> 
> * Since this is something that could be used in many different
>   applications, create an API that facilitates this.
> 
> * Write and debug the code.
> 
> * Test performance against the requirements stated in the
>   standard documents.
> 
> * Document the implementation and test suite.
> 
> 
> As a SW development manager working in a commercial environment,
> and given a competent programmer who also knows some audio DSP
> basics, I'd allow a man-month. And when I was actually doing that
> job I was often said to be too optimistic in my estimates.
> 
> That adds up to something like 3 to 4 kEuro. Most manageers, if
> they can instead buy the same for 300 Euro would do that. Unless
> they know they can get away with stealing it. 

Stealing is of course wrong.  Making money out of it without
paying you, in the spirit of the GPL, is not.

-- 
Pedro Alves