16 Nov
2011
16 Nov
'11
2:28 p.m.
On Wednesday 16 November 2011 11:16:51, Fons Adriaensen wrote:
On Wed, Nov 16, 2011 at 01:40:36PM +0300, Louigi
Verona wrote:
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:
"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. 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