BSD vs. GPL

On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 01:15:06AM -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

Consider Redhad, Caldera, etc. They are adding value "on top of" the
OS, but the kernel is pretty much the same for all of them. In fact,
aside from some tweaks, they really aren't involved in enhancing the
lower levels of Linux, and economically, they really can't. They could

I beg to disagree. RedHat for instance pays quite some people for working on
GNOME. All of GNOME's software is GPLed and still it seems to make sense for
Debian. Or how about Coral that works on a GPLes installation procedure for
Debian?

Michael
--
Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael.Meskes@gmx.net | Use PostgreSQL!

Bruce Momjian wrote:

Here are some short examples. I have a Viewsonic 15" digital flat panel
monitor with ATI XpertLCD card. Xig has a commercial X server that
drives it. XFree86 doesn't support it. The cost of the X server is
worth it, because without it, I would be forced to us another display
device.

This is mainly the result of ATI not giving out the specs (for whatever
reason - possibly an agreement with Xig ;-p )

The cost of BSDI is well worth it for me, because of the high
reliability and performance of the OS is well worth the cost. Free
software is nice, but for me, the cost of commercial software is a
bargain considering the benefits it provides.

The fact of being commercial does not automatically make software
high reliability and performance.

Just imagine a scenario where the current PostgreSQL development team
had a bunch of marketing/management guys who had made commitments based
on our initial release date estimates. I bet that the release would have
been still a "little" late but without most of the enchancements and
much more buggy.

(This doesn't mean I don't support open software. I am a PostgreSQL
developer.)

Who do you want to write your heart monitor software?

Someone with deep pockets and tight schedules of course, so my relatives
could sue them afterwards ;)

-------------
Hannu

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

Consider Redhad, Caldera, etc. They are adding value "on top of"
the OS, but the kernel is pretty much the same for all of them. In
fact, aside from some tweaks, they really aren't involved in
enhancing the lower levels of Linux, and economically, they really
can't. They could put 100 programmers on it, but once they do a
release, all their competitors have all their enhancements, and the
economic benefit of those 100 programmers is gone. Sure, Linux is
better for it, but those 100 programmers aren't seeing an increased
sales rate to pay their salaries.

But Bruce, you're uninformed. Heck, you're dead wrong. The two
organizations you name, and more besides do work on the Linux kernel.
A lot. I realize that you're not deeply connected in the Linux
community, so you may not realize much of this, but the simple fact is
that RedHat and others do exactly what you say they don't.

Caldera has contributed significantly to both the PPP code and IPX
code in the Linux kernel. They've developed a SYSV Streams emulation
(that Linus doesn't want in the main kernel :-), and some other stuff.

RedHat employs Doug Ledford who works on (and has put a *lot* or work
into) the Adaptec 7XXX driver. They employ Dave Miller who works on
both multi-arch issues and oversees (and codes a fair portion) of the
TCP networking. They (through his consulting firm) employ Alan Cox,
who is often regarded as Linus' right-hand man, and was responsible
for seeing the 2.0.36 and 2.0.37 stable kernels to release, plus
whatever other scut jobs are out there. I believe RH also employs
Stephen C. Tweedie, who does major work on the ext2 fs, including
adding journaling.

In fact, one could argue that if the people RedHat pays to work on the
kernel disappeared, work on the kernel would suddenly get an awful lot
slower.

SUSE employs Andrea Arcangeli, who is doing a ton of work on the Linux
VM system. SUSE has also developed X servers which they then
contrib'd back to XFree86.org, which arguably benefits even more
people since XF86 works on the *BSDs (including BSD/OS, no?) (and
which, since XF86 is under the MIT license, someone could then take
and make proprietary...fair?).

So, in light of these new facts, would you like to reassess your
assessment?

Mike.

Bruce Momjian <maillist@candle.pha.pa.us> writes:

Consider Redhad, Caldera, etc. They are adding value "on top of"
the OS, but the kernel is pretty much the same for all of them. In
fact, aside from some tweaks, they really aren't involved in
enhancing the lower levels of Linux, and economically, they really can't. .

To which Michael Meskes responded:

I beg to disagree. RedHat for instance pays quite some people for working on
GNOME. All of GNOME's software is GPLed and still it seems to make sense for
Debian. Or how about Coral that works on a GPLes installation procedure for
Debian?

And to which Michael Alan Dorman wrote:

But Bruce, you're uninformed. Heck, you're dead wrong. The two
organizations you name, and more besides do work on the Linux kernel.
A lot. I realize that you're not deeply connected in the Linux
community, so you may not realize much of this, but the simple fact is
that RedHat and others do exactly what you say they don't.

Caldera has contributed significantly to both the PPP code and IPX
code in the Linux kernel. They've developed a SYSV Streams emulation
(that Linus doesn't want in the main kernel :-), and some other stuff.

RedHat employs Doug Ledford who works on (and has put a *lot* or work
into) the Adaptec 7XXX driver. They employ Dave Miller who works on
both multi-arch issues and oversees (and codes a fair portion) of the
TCP networking. They (through his consulting firm) employ Alan Cox,
who is often regarded as Linus' right-hand man, and was responsible
for seeing the 2.0.36 and 2.0.37 stable kernels to release, plus
whatever other scut jobs are out there. I believe RH also employs
Stephen C. Tweedie, who does major work on the ext2 fs, including
adding journaling.

In fact, one could argue that if the people RedHat pays to work on the
kernel disappeared, work on the kernel would suddenly get an awful lot
slower.

SUSE employs Andrea Arcangeli, who is doing a ton of work on the Linux
VM system. SUSE has also developed X servers which they then
contrib'd back to XFree86.org, which arguably benefits even more
people since XF86 works on the *BSDs (including BSD/OS, no?) (and
which, since XF86 is under the MIT license, someone could then take
and make proprietary...fair?).

So, in light of these new facts, would you like to reassess your
assessment?

Red Hat is in the business of establishing a corporate trademark
and becoming the "standard" Linux so that it can establish a monopoly.
To this end, they will spend some serious doe, but only on improvements
and fixes that directly affect the ability of the distribution to ship
to a client, thus, we have RPM, device drivers, and GNOME.
However, even with this notable effort, I would like to know
what % of revenue Red Hat plans to spend on open source development...

I doubt that it is anything "significant", and if it is, I would
call Red Hat's situation exceptional. They have a near monopoly on
corporate/consumer distributions, and their $80 price tag is the
proof. Do you think after the near monopoly becomes a full monopoly
that this % of revenue will increase or decrease? I'd bet
on the latter. The Microsoft pattern, albeit a much less powerful
strain, is about to re-occur. What good is a bunch of software if
it can't be named? It isn't. In the software world, a trademark
is a name for a standard. And RedHat is about to own it.

Thus, although you you have found some noteable exceptions to
Bruce's comments, the general thrust of his argument still
holds -- if the software distribution market was competitive,
companies like RedHat, etc., could not afford to fund open
source development.

However, RedHat's business is NOT distribution, it is
standardization. And this allows them to spend money
on open source _if_ it is in their best interest. I would
argue that it is in their best interest now, but it
won't be in a few years after they have a fimly
established monopoly.

Thus, your exceptions point to a deeper problem with
open source, rather than positive support for it.

Best Wishes,

Clark Evans

P.S. It is slightly different (and a few months old)
but I wrote a possible alternative at http:\\distributedcopyright.org
It would be cool to have your feedback.

May I humbly suggest that the PostgreSQL developers list is an inopportune
place to discuss licensing? If I recall correctly, there newsgroups
for this sort of thing, complete with people who want to listen.

--
Todd Graham Lewis Postmaster, MindSpring Enterprises
tlewis@mindspring.net (800) 719-4664, x22804

"There is no spoon."

At 01:15 20/06/99 -0400, Bruce Momjian wrote:

I have followed this discussion, and while there is a lot of it, there
aren't many specific examples. Let me suggest one: BSDI

They took the BSD4.4(386/BSD) code, hired many of the departing BSD
folks, and developed BSD/OS based on it. Now, if the BSD code was GPL,
would those people have started a company...

...

... Only "Source licenses holders" receive
OS/kernel source, which currently costs an additional $2k.)

This is one model for development. There have already been counterexamples to it being the only model. My personal experience as a consultant and developer suggests your model is probably not even the best. I have had occasion to use the support services of a number of the larger IT companies, and while the support can be very professional, it leaves a lot to be desired:

1. No commercial company will say "The optimizer code is stuffed, we're not sure how to fix it but we're working on it. Use a work-around". Instead they will leave you in the dark, saying "It has been passed on to engineering, and we'll let you know when it is fixed" [the last part only sometimes]. For me it is far more useful to know that the bug is a real problem that may take a while to fix. Open source even gives me the *choice* to employ someone to fix the code (especially for those products that have commercial support), and I am happy that such fixes be made public.

2. Access to the developers of commercial software is rare, and controlled even at the best of times. When you do get to talk to them at a conference, for example, they are totally unwilling to talk about futures. Contrast this to Linux or PgSQL. Future plans for a database are very important, and affect my choices in database design.

3. Quality. There are many aspects to quality; the most important in my view are: does it work? when it doesn't work, is it easily fixed? OK, PgSQL is not as reliable or robust as Dec/Rdb, but I am not a 24-Hour shop with mission-critical applications running all the time, so I don't need Rdb. Experience with bugs in PgSQL and in other database products suggests that PgSQL bugs get fixed quicker. Frequently a new patch appears within a day of a bug report. Patches for known bugs can be downloaded from the mailing list immediately. Linux is another example; it is more reliable than NT, and again, the few bugs that I have reported have been fixed in days. Contrast this to Microsoft's support for NT! For the GPL products I use, I would say the oevrall quality is higher than commercial offerings.

Consider Redhad, Caldera, etc. They are adding value "on top of" the
OS, but the kernel is pretty much the same for all of them. In fact,
aside from some tweaks, they really aren't involved in enhancing the
lower levels of Linux, and economically, they really can't. They could
put 100 programmers on it, but once they do a release, all their
competitors have all their enhancements, and the economic benefit of
those 100 programmers is gone.

Others have already pointed out that your facts are wrong here, and so too is the philosophical point:

For an existing *large* GPL project, any additional code developed by 100 programmers will require 100 programmers to maintain and enhance. If the original programmers are all fired, then the product becomes unsupportable and worthless - you would be very unwise to buy it.

Furthermore, since most of the money for GPL'd products comes from support and ancillary sales (eg. commercial products based on the s/w in question), for anyone to become competitive with the original developer they would require a substantial investment up front (to understand the code), and a continuing investment in development and support.

Rather than compete they would be better off enhancing some other part of the software and thereby developing their own niche. All parties can then use the improved software. This approach makes the product stronger, so increaes market share, and solidifies the basis of the two companies.

Sure, Linux is better for it, but those
100 programmers aren't seeing an increased sales rate to pay their
salaries.

This is true; many 'volunteer' programmers do not see fair monetary recompense in the short term. But the small amounts of unpaid work I have done has been a good learning experiance, enjoyable, interesting, and made me feel good about the work I do. This is at least *some* compensation, ignoring for the moment the competitive edge such experience gives me in the market place. Combine this with the fact that many commercial companies see the value in paying their employees to work on GPL code, and I think you will find that 'those 100 programmers *are* seeing an increase *in their remuneration*. In some cases they may only have jobs because of it.

So, the GPL vs. BSDL issue really boils down to whether a particular
piece of software is going to need a commercial organization to
improve/enhance it in the future.

No, it does not. It boils down to whether or not the internet community is large enough to continue to produce high quality voluntary contributions to projects. There are always people and companies who are unwilling to work for anything other than hard cash, especially in the current economic millieu, but GPL will work as long as developers see value in GPL.

I am lucky: I get paid reasonably well for the work I do, and have a lot of work (at least, at the moment!). This means I have the luxury to be able to contribute my time (in small ways) to selected voluntary 'clients'. These are generally organizations that have little or no money to spare, and could not afford a programmer under any circumstances. I could not help them if products like PgSQL and Linux were not available and of such high quality. And I strongly believe that they would not be of such high quality if the source was not open.

If it does require a
commercial team that can put man-years into the project and needs to
recover the costs of doing that, GPL will prevent that from happening,
and a commercial entity will have to start from scratch in developing
the code so they can "own the code."

This is clearly not true, as has been argued elsewhere.

The answer to that question also suggests the question of whether
non-paid developers are the future for "all" software.

Even I don't suggest it's the way for all software. Our current social and legal structures pretty much require that someone take responsibility and due care for some things (eg. heart monitoring software). The best way to show 'due care' is to buy commercial software from a reputable company. The *best* software may still be freely available on the internet, but the safest software (ie. readily available for legal action), will always be commercial.

If it is, then
GPL is the way to go. If it is not, then GPL use needs to be decided
carefully depending on the perceived need for later commercialization of
the code.

No, it depends on the perceived niche for the code; if I come up with a hardware/software-neural-database-thingy, then I'm NOT going to make the software open source - it would disclose commercial secrets. Similarly, if I am the sole developer of a complete, high quality, working product, then I am *inclined* to keep it commercial - but ONLY if I plan to try to sell it or market it. If I do neither of those things, then it should be made public.

If, on the other hand, I develop something useful, but not world-breaking, that may still need work, then I will release it into the (internet) world, and hope some other person:

1. Finds it useful and saves them time, so they can do other GPL work.
2. Likes it and enhances it (thereby saving me time).

If enough people find such code useful, it may eventually become a 'PgSQL-scale' project, and I'll be very happy.

Commercialization of code is not a bad thing.

But you need a pretty good reason to do it!

Fortunately for Linux, there are enough non-paid programmers working on
it that GPL is not a problem.

Not to mention the paid programmers...

Maybe all software will some day have
enough non-paid programmers so commercial software organizations with
teams of paid programmers are no longer required. Maybe not.

I get paid to write software for people. The nature of my work means that unless otherwise specified, I own the copyright. I get a lot of work because my clients are happy, and I work fast. I work fast because I reuse my own code (I will never GPL my own software libraries!). If more commercial organizations pooled their code (eg. via GPL) then I would be out of a job, and they would save a great deal of money. This won't happen because most organization have mistaken beliefs about their 'competitive edge', even when it relates to non-core business.

Teams of programmers will always be employed either to support and enhance software (legacy code, or GPL'd stuff), or to develop 'proprietry' code (neural-database-thingy), for projects that are too specialised to warrant general interest (electronic fuel injection systems), or for mission-critical code (heart monitoring machines). Only the first in this list is GPL'd, but it will be the largest category.

We are the factory workers of the new millennium - as such, over time we will probably face more 'piece-work', than new development work, but we will have work.

Here are some short examples. I have a Viewsonic 15" digital flat panel
monitor with ATI XpertLCD card. Xig has a commercial X server that
drives it. XFree86 doesn't support it.

Usually there is a reason for this. XFree used not to support Diamond Stealth cards, until Diamond made some data public (they presumably believed the data gave them a 'competitive edge'). By then I had bought another card.

The cost of the X server is
worth it, because without it, I would be forced to us another display
device.

If the X-server was $1000, you would have bought another monitor and say 'the price of the monitor was worth it, because without it I could not run Linux'. Everything is relative; the best solution was that you had to pay no money, and XFree supported the monitor. Xig may even have made more sales into the Linux market if they made their X Server GPL. I presume they are a hardware manufacturer? Most people give away their drivers for a very good reason...

The cost of BSDI is well worth it for me, because of the high
reliability and performance of the OS is well worth the cost.

I could say the same about Linux. My linux box is substantially more reliable than my NT box. You could at this point say "Yes, but NT is Microsoft", but my point is that Microsoft is probably the embodiment of the anti-GPL philosophy.

Free
software is nice, but for me, the cost of commercial software is a
bargain considering the benefits it provides. (This doesn't mean I
don't support open software. I am a PostgreSQL developer.)

For me the support, flexibility, and reliability of the GPL software I use is substantially superior to the commercial offerings.

Who do you want to write your heart monitor software?

As somebody else said, "someone my family can sue". But in a more serious sense, heart monitoring software is probably a small niche that *does* require 'due care' be taken. It will be commercial for a long time to come. Personally I would prefer it be released under a GPL, then 1000's of programmers with heart problems will find the bugs before they kill someone...

At 22:14 20/06/99 -0400, Clark Evans wrote:

Thus, although you you have found some noteable exceptions to
Bruce's comments, the general thrust of his argument still
holds -- if the software distribution market was competitive,
companies like RedHat, etc., could not afford to fund open
source development.

I do not agree with this. Red Hat is *not* competing on the basis that it's source is better. The fact that Red Hat is a 'standard' Linux distribution is crucial to it's sales. What the likes of Red Hat use to define themselves is how they package the software (no disrepsect meant): the quality of RPM, the SUPPORT they provide, and the fact that everything is open. If 'Blue Hat' came along and wanted to compete, they would not try to out-code Red Hat, they would try to provide better installation, support and distribution mechanisms.

However, RedHat's business is NOT distribution, it is
standardization. And this allows them to spend money
on open source _if_ it is in their best interest. I would
argue that it is in their best interest now, but it
won't be in a few years after they have a fimly
established monopoly.

In fact the *only* way Red Hat can become a monopoly is by 'owning' the code. They may dominate, by force of numbers of developers, but so long as the GPL applies, they only own the good will they generate and the distribution and support business they establish.

This does not seem too unreasonable, but maybe I'm naieve.

Thus, your exceptions point to a deeper problem with
open source, rather than positive support for it.

The only real problem for open source is ensuring that the 'reference' copies of the software are not all controlled by one company. Which is another reason why it is in developers interests to continue contributing to open source projects. If no-one contributes, Red Hat will have an effective monopoly.

----------------------------------------------------------------
Philip Warner | __---_____
Albatross Consulting Pty. Ltd. |----/ - \
(A.C.N. 008 659 498) | /(@) ______---_
Tel: +61-03-5367 7422 | _________ \
Fax: +61-03-5367 7430 | ___________ |
Http://www.rhyme.com.au | / \|
| --________--
PGP key available upon request, | /
and from pgp5.ai.mit.edu:11371 |/

At 10:14 PM 6/20/99 -0400, Clark Evans wrote:

However, RedHat's business is NOT distribution, it is
standardization.

Thank God and I deleted the rest, thank you.

And this allows them to spend money
on open source _if_ it is in their best interest.

Wow, a tautology! I've heard these are really hard
to prove correct.

I would
argue that it is in their best interest now, but it
won't be in a few years after they have a fimly
established monopoly.

Thus, your exceptions point to a deeper problem with
open source, rather than positive support for it.

The deeper problem being that open source MIGHT become
as tied to one vendor as closed source, if I read your
argument correctly.

Well, let's imagine for a moment that I concede that
point...

There's still a difference...you still get the source.

I've got candles for sale if you need some to burn at
your Open Source Means Everyone Works For Free Always
shrine.

- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza@pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net

Clark Evans said at �Re: [HACKERS] BSD vs. GPL�. [1999/06/20 22:14]

I doubt that it is anything "significant", and if it is, I would
call Red Hat's situation exceptional. They have a near monopoly on
corporate/consumer distributions, and their $80 price tag is the
proof. Do you think after the near monopoly becomes a full monopoly
that this % of revenue will increase or decrease? I'd bet
on the latter. The Microsoft pattern, albeit a much less powerful
strain, is about to re-occur. What good is a bunch of software if
it can't be named? It isn't. In the software world, a trademark
is a name for a standard. And RedHat is about to own it.

I didn't really want to get into this discussion, but I thought it necessary to
point out the obvious fact that you can buy RedHat 6.0 from CheapBytes for $3
on CD. If you have an internet connection, you can download it and burn your
own CD, or do an FTP install. RH can raise the price tag as much as they like,
but we'll still be able to get it for free (or virtually free). Also, FWIW,
RedHat spent something like 10% of its revenue on R&D last year, which is
pretty good for a company that lost money. After all, if it were microsoft,
they'd probably save money by cutting the R&D.

--
Nick Bastin - RBB Systems, Inc.
The idea that Bill Gates has appeared like a knight in shining armour to lead
all customers out of a mire of technological chaos neatly ignores the fact that
it was he who, by peddling second-rate technology, led them into it in the
first place. - Douglas Adams

On Sun, Jun 20, 1999 at 10:14:22PM -0400, Clark Evans wrote:

To this end, they will spend some serious doe, but only on improvements
and fixes that directly affect the ability of the distribution to ship
to a client, thus, we have RPM, device drivers, and GNOME.

But these improvements make it into other distributions as well.

I doubt that it is anything "significant", and if it is, I would
call Red Hat's situation exceptional. They have a near monopoly on
corporate/consumer distributions, and their $80 price tag is the

In the US maybe, but over here in Germany they are way down the chart.

Michael
--
Michael Meskes | Go SF 49ers!
Th.-Heuss-Str. 61, D-41812 Erkelenz | Go Rhein Fire!
Tel.: (+49) 2431/72651 | Use Debian GNU/Linux!
Email: Michael.Meskes@gmx.net | Use PostgreSQL!

On Sun, 20 Jun 1999, Don Baccus wrote:

I've got candles for sale if you need some to burn at
your Open Source Means Everyone Works For Free Always
shrine.

Don - an interesting can o' worms Bruce opened, eh?

I find Bruce's argument interesting but one fact makes the
debate somewhat moot: Linux doesn't need a FreeBSD emulator.
Until it does most will use Linux - and GPL.

I think Stallman goes too far with calling Ousterhout a `parasite'
but I nonetheless can't help but suppress a grin as I write this.
(Trying desperately to avoid a bad pun about being tickled...and
failing! ;-)

Maybe I should get a quote for some of your candles so I can
do a purchase order?

------- North Richmond Community Mental Health Center -------

Thomas Good MIS Coordinator
Vital Signs: tomg@ { admin | q8 } .nrnet.org
Phone: 718-354-5528
Fax: 718-354-5056

/* Member: Computer Professionals For Social Responsibility */

Michael Alan Dorman <mdorman-pgsql.hackers@debian.org> writes:

[deleted]

Um, re-reading this in the cold light of morning, it sounds way more
rancorous and argumentative than I would have liked. Sorry, Bruce, it
wasn't my intent.

Mike.

Bruce, Marc, et all,

For those interested in a possible way to make money with
PostgreSQL, yet, still keep it "free", and "open", please
visit http://distributedcopyright.org and send comments
to discuss@distributedcopyright.org

I'm going to fix it up this web site of these weeks (I'm
hit hard) with a more detailed summary. Richard Stallman
has posted some sound advice to the discussion list (to both
help improve it and to also voice his objections).

I think it is possible to form an community-based
organization having an open business environment that
would create, maintain, and sell a 'commercial' database.
In this case, one that is "free" as in liberty, but not
necessarly free as in "free beer". Also, I feel that a
good amount of corporate support could be generated if an
appropriate way for investors (and sweat equity developers)
to get a reasonable return on investment could be established.

Anyway, it is clear to me that no single person
can create a new business model, I've tried to
bootstrap some ideas .. primary from others thoughts
which have been floting around various mailing lists
for a while.

If a core group here is interested, I'll dedicate
more time to it. A law firm in Washington DC
has made an offer to help work out the legal stuff
pro-bono if there is enough interest from a
decent size development community.

PLEASE follow up to discuss@distributedcopyright.org and
not to the hackers list.

Best Wishes,

Clark Evans

Don Baccus wrote:

At 10:14 PM 6/20/99 -0400, Clark Evans wrote:

However, RedHat's business is NOT distribution, it is
standardization.

Thank God and I deleted the rest, thank you.

Didn't realize that I was preaching, my apologies.

And this allows them to spend money
on open source _if_ it is in their best interest.

Wow, a tautology!

I don't think this qualifies as a tautology. A tautology
is an implication where the premise and the consequent
are identical. Tautologies are useful in some places
where the form of the premise and consequent is different
and this different form allows the argument to proceed.
This pattern is common in many logical proofs, and is
extremely useful.

I've heard these are really hard to prove correct.

Actually a tautology is always correct.

Let me try and explain what I was saying again:

The electronic distribution business is a very competitive
market, since the barrier to entry is very small. Thus,
there is not a large profit margin, nor is there expectation
for a large profit margin. Thus, it is unlikely that any
company in the this business would make a significiant
investment in open source research and development.
The tech-support business is almost identical, as
there are limited economies of scale.

However, the standardization market is by nature
monopolistic, i.e., the standard defines the market.
In an emerging standards market, initial customers make
their choice based on the quality of each product, however,
after a short period, quality becomes secondary as the
value residing in the complementary product and service
market becomes more important. Eventually, competition
between standars becomes price inelastic since the value
is primarly determined by the size of the complementary
market, and no longer determined by quality. This allows
those who control a large, established standards market to
extract large tax on the customers in the market.

Thus, I'm just pointing out that Red Hat is forming
a market, that they will try to own using what ever
legal might they can. Certainly they will be weaker
than Microsoft at protecting their market since they
lack copyright law to aid them (or do they, since
they are making a compilation, which is also
copyrightable -- this will be discovered in court? ).
Even so, they still have trademark protection, and,
possibly with future corporate deals, patent protection.

The deeper problem being that open source MIGHT become
as tied to one vendor as closed source, if I read your
argument correctly.

I think you have it, the issue moves from the right
to have open source, to the right to determine what
is in the "standard" distribution.

My argument is that "open source" is only half of
the problem, "open standard", via trademarks is
the other half. And it seems to me that many people
are still missing this point. But, you are correct that
it is much less of a problem.

I'd still like to know what percentage of profit
RedHat gives back to the community. If it is large
now, it would be cool if they put it in writing --
that it will stay large well after the RedHat
tradename becomes a household word. Perhaps Linus
could work this out using the Linux trademark.

In any case, "free of price" should be the least of
our concerns, don't focus on price, focus on freedom.

Anyway, so much for the rambling.

Well, let's imagine for a moment that I concede that
point...

There's still a difference...you still get the source.

And this is cool, which is why it is no where near
as big as a problem as Microsoft.

I've got candles for sale if you need some to burn at
your Open Source Means Everyone Works For Free Always
shrine.

Well, to my recollection, I never said this or anything like
it. If I did, would you help correct me by being more explicit?

Nicholas Bastin wrote:

Clark Evans said:

I doubt that it is anything "significant", and if it is, I would
call Red Hat's situation exceptional. They have a near monopoly on
corporate/consumer distributions, and their $80 price tag is the
proof. Do you think after the near monopoly becomes a full monopoly
that this % of revenue will increase or decrease? I'd bet
on the latter. The Microsoft pattern, albeit a much less powerful
strain, is about to re-occur. What good is a bunch of software if
it can't be named? It isn't. In the software world, a trademark
is a name for a standard. And RedHat is about to own it.

I didn't really want to get into this discussion, but I thought it necessary to
point out the obvious fact that you can buy RedHat 6.0 from CheapBytes for $3
on CD. If you have an internet connection, you can download it and burn your
own CD, or do an FTP install. RH can raise the price tag as much as they like,
but we'll still be able to get it for free (or virtually free).

I am familiar with CheapBytes. I am also weary about trademark law
being used against companies like CheapBytes. It won't happen yet
since RedHat would get too much bad press. However, in my non-legal
opinion, compilation copyright law and trademarks could be used
to successfully limit copying of distributions. This I guess
we will have to wait and see. I'm not a lawer, so I can't say one
way or the other.

Also, FWIW, RedHat spent something like 10% of its revenue
on R&D last year, which is pretty good for a company that lost money.

Interesting... Why are they loosing money? Answer: Beacuse they
are trying to establish a market monopoly by owning a standard.
Otherwise Dell and other companies would not be taking an equity
interest. You can expect this to change once most of the competition
is eliminated. Profits will be prevalent, and R&D will drop
like a rock.

After all, if it were microsoft, they'd probably save money by cutting the R&D.

No. Microsoft looses tons of money in R&D on new markets. However,
once the market is established, then they jack up the rents and
cut the R&D. You have only seen one side of RedHat now, the side
trying to establish a market. With Dell and others owning interest,
they will be forced to behave like Microsoft when it is time.

Thus, RedHat is becoming a trustee for an operating system standard.
Yet, we have no legal agreement by which we can hold them
accountable. Instead, we only have market forces, which do
not work in a monopolistic environment. Better than Microsoft?
Sure. Can it be better? I think so. Alot better.

Best,

Clark Evans