[linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux

[Chris Pickett]

RickTaylor at Speakeasy.Net wrote:
> On 09-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
> }  RickTaylor at Speakeasy.Net wrote:
> } > On 08-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
> }  
> } > }  I've encountered / heard of very few shareware developers who actually 
> } > }  make a decent programmer's wages from their software.
> } > 
> } >  Do you always want to work for someone else? I think there needs to be
> } >  room for both... just like in other businesses.
> }  
> }  Well, I guess there's the whole consulting option for free software 
> }  developers, i.e. develop features for a fee.  There's nothing that stops 
> 
>  That's not programming. I don't know if that matters to you.

Huh?  Developing new features (or squashing bugs) surely counts as 
programming.  I don't mean support issues.  Like the Dreamworks paying 
Codeweavers example just given by somebody else counts (although perhaps 
the example is bad, because it wasn't free, I dunno).

> }  the developer from keeping the changes private between him and the 
> }  client either, if the client is worried about competition.  Personally, 
> 
>  The GPL?

All the GPL says is that you must promise to give the source code to 
anybody you provide a binary to, for up to three years, and if they make 
derivations and distribute binaries, they must also promise source code 
to the recipients.  Specifically, it does NOT say, "you must make all 
GPL'd software you release available to the public, even if you haven't 
given said public copies of your program."  If you pay me $5000 for 
GPL'd software, we can sign an agreement that I won't give it to anyone 
else for 6 months, and neither will you, and we'll both still get the 
source code.  This is a key business point, IMO.

> }  I want to work for somebody else, but in an environment where I feel 
> }  like it's working for myself, but serving the rest of society (e.g. 
> }  university, research institute, whatever).  Working for customers and 
> }  clients just isn't what I want.
> 
>  I can see that. Art is a bit too "self expressive" to allow one to do that and
> be content with it. It's just too restrictive. For me anyway...

It's interesting to think about what leads to good art.  Some people 
think all truly great art is born out of hardship and poverty.  I myself 
think money often destroys art (programming and music both being forms 
of art).

> } >  You are probably right about the greater good... I'm a strong believer in
> } > choice though.
> }  
> }  I guess ultimately I have the opinion that since we have this amazing 
> }  free operating system, that's literally been the product of a 
> }  generation's work, it doesn't make sense to turn it into a wasteland. 
> }  We've already got Windows for that ...
> 
>  I'm thinking more along the lines of a open source system with shareware apps.
> I think the system itself would go down the tubes if you started getting
> internal competition, etc.

I guess ... I guess I've stopped distinguishing between system and 
application.  Is Mozilla part of the system?  Or is it definitely an 
application?  Do you define application by replaceable, non-essential 
part?  What's essential?  Is X essential?  How about bash?  Is the linux 
kernel even essential?  Can't you run this software with a different 
kernel?  I basically view everything as a set of interoperating programs 
-- including the music stuff -- although I might concede that the kernel 
is perhaps the only "true" system component.

Cheers,
Chris