[linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux

RickTaylor at Speakeasy.Net RickTaylor at Speakeasy.Net
Fri Jul 9 16:28:45 EDT 2004

On 09-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
}  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
} > } > }  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).

 "Consulting". Developing features for a fee would fall under the heading of
"comissioned work" ...I suppose you can look at that however you like. I don't
see it as producing ones own work {I guess I wasn't all that clear.}

} > }  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 suppose you and I are reading this a bit differently.


 I have no profit motive though.

} > }  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).

 I think money tends to change the artists priorities. The work itself needs to
be the first priority.

 Ideally, I think art needs to be sold after it's done. There shouldn't be any
outside constraints, etc... Commercial quality is commercial quality because it
has to take commercial constraints into consideration. {deadlines, workflow,
templating, etc...}

} > } >  You are probably right about the greater good... I'm a strong believer
} > } > 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.

 If it's essential for system operation {I think this has to include X because
so many apps are dependant on it.} it's system. I imagine this could vary
depending the function of the system... For the most part I think it's pretty
clear cut. 

E-Mail: RickTaylor at Speakeasy.Net
Date: 09-Jul-2004
Time: 15:01:23

This message was sent by XFMail

More information about the Linux-audio-user mailing list