From: Karim Yaghmour <karim@opersys.com>
To: Larry McVoy <lm@bitmover.com>
Cc: "Adam J. Richter" <adam@yggdrasil.com>, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: business models [was patent stuff]
Date: Mon, 27 May 2002 19:15:50 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <3CF2BE26.4FF03387@opersys.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200205272152.OAA03070@adam.yggdrasil.com> <20020527152452.A24502@work.bitmover.com>
I agree that this should go on some other list, but 'til then, here are my 2c.
No offense Larry, but many of your arguments are the same used by Microsoft
to push their vision of publicly available source.
Larry McVoy wrote:
> It's economics 101 - a free market will go to whomever can provide the
> needed service most cheaply.
I will take the liberty of rephrasing to illustrate my point of view:
"a free market will go to whomever can provide the needed service."
The question is: Can you provide the service? Of course if the service
you are selling is common knowledge, then you've got nothing to sell
your competitor can't. But if you're part of building the technology
then you're certainly in a know-how monopoly position. This is why I
don't think any of the kernel developers will ever be out of a job.
The drawback to this is that you simply can't scale a knowledge-based
company the way you do with a classical intellectual-property-based
company. The way I see it, the software industry will look increasingly
like that of other speciality fields such as law and medicine. Sure, any
doctor can administer a serum, but not every doctor can actually perform
robotic heart-surgery. He who can perform robotic heart-surgery can
offer something other doctors can't. Same will be with the software field.
> In my opinion, it's time for the free software fanatics to ease off and
> let some moderates come in and try and define a reasonable compromise.
Can you suggest a list of names of some "moderates"?
> If you hold the "It's GPL or bugger off" position, people will figure out
> how to work around it and it is virtually certain you won't like what they
> do. If you offer them some sort of reasonable compromise, I'll bet they
> take it. If you don't, you get to live with whatever their nasty evil
> business minds dream up.
I predict the inverse. Of course, people will actually try to use patents to
restrict free and open source software. And of course, they will push this
as hard and as far as they can. The community, however, will always find
alternative ways to obtain the same results and, in the end, no client wil
use the patent holder's products or services. Instead, they will use the
community's alternative solutions.
You would like the open source and free software communities to get used
to having their rights being violated. I think the software "manufacturers"
better get used to the fact that they can't outsmart the community,
regardless of the legal/political/financial tools they use.
As I said earlier, the current software business model is an endangered
species.
Best regards,
Karim
===================================================
Karim Yaghmour
karim@opersys.com
Embedded and Real-Time Linux Expert
===================================================
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-05-27 23:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 29+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-05-27 21:52 patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] Adam J. Richter
2002-05-27 22:24 ` business models [was patent stuff] Larry McVoy
2002-05-27 23:15 ` Karim Yaghmour [this message]
2002-05-27 23:31 ` Austin Gonyou
2002-05-28 9:29 ` Peter Wächtler
2002-05-28 13:46 ` Mark Mielke
2002-05-29 8:34 ` Peter Wächtler
2002-05-28 7:53 ` Gilad Ben-Yossef
2002-05-28 8:57 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-28 11:30 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-28 10:32 ` Ingo Oeser
2002-05-28 12:28 ` Jonathan Corbet
2002-05-28 18:35 ` Eric W. Biederman
2002-05-27 23:26 ` patent on O_ATOMICLOOKUP [Re: [PATCH] loopable tmpfs (2.4.17)] Alan Cox
[not found] <50.c105234.2a24c92d@aol.com>
2002-05-28 13:42 ` business models [was patent stuff] Gilad Ben-Yossef
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2002-05-28 17:13 Adam J. Richter
2002-05-28 17:52 ` Daniel Phillips
2002-05-28 18:22 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-28 17:23 ` Andre Hedrick
2002-05-29 21:44 ` David Weinehall
2002-05-30 4:51 ` Greg KH
2002-05-29 3:21 Adam J. Richter
2002-05-29 13:15 ` Alan Cox
2002-05-29 14:13 ` Jonathan Corbet
2002-05-29 16:15 ` Jamie Lokier
2002-05-29 17:29 ` Nicholas Knight
2002-05-31 20:17 ` Perry The Cynic
2002-06-03 10:49 ` Rob Landley
2002-05-29 19:13 Adam J. Richter
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=3CF2BE26.4FF03387@opersys.com \
--to=karim@opersys.com \
--cc=adam@yggdrasil.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=lm@bitmover.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox