|
|
|
| Authored by: jbb on Thursday, July 18 2013 @ 08:51 PM EDT |
GPL is anti-competitive, because it is extremely difficult to
differentiate
between software that uses the same source code as the starting
point. Any
feature one vendor adds, will be added by other vendors, to their
version, if it
is useful for the end-users.
I don't follow your
logic here. It seems you are assuming people in the marketplace are forced to
use GPL code. They are not. Even if you don't use the GPL code you get a lot
of the benefit for "free" because you get to see the source code. When I was
teaching I tried to embue my students with how beneficial readable source code
is by comparing the price of a binary copy of Windows with the price of the
Windows source code. I just don't see how letting Microsoft see our source code
while we are not allowed to see theirs gives us an anti-competitive
advantage. If anything, it is the other way around.
If you want to argue
that it is hard to compete against GPL code with an less efficient business
model, that exact same argument could be used to stifle any technique that is
more efficient than what came before. You could say interchangeable parts are
anti-competitive or assembly line production is anti-competitive.
Please
remember that the whole point of laws against anti-competitive behavior is to
protect consumers. It is not to protect less efficient
competitors. Even in a make-believe world where people were forced to
use the GPL, I don't see how consumers are harmed by the example you gave. You
yourself say it results in products that are [more] useful for end-users. When
there is virtually no risk of a sudden and unfair rise in price (or really any
rise in price) then I don't see how consumers are harmed by getting a better
product at a lower price.
---
In a time of universal deceit -- telling
the truth is a revolutionary act.
-- George Orwell
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 10:26 AM EDT |
And the problem with competing on features is?
When I was in Japan many years ago, I noticed in Akihabara (I think I spelled it
right) that a tech company would come out with a product with feature X. Very
soon, the competitors would have Feature X and Feature Y. So the original
company came out with X, Y, and Z. No litigation - just steady, quick
improvement. Which is what I thought it was about - "To advance Progress
in the Useful Arts and Sciences."
GPL is highly competitive. EMACS for one was split for years, as was GCC.
Eventually they merged. ANYONE can take Linux, fork it, and try and replace
Linus. They just have to do better than him. Meritocracy.
Regarding Android - AOSP guarantees ANYONE (to include Microsoft) can take the
Android code and, without permission of Google, create their own version and
load it on phones. An example is Cyanogenmod - which is itself the shortest
answer to Fairsearch's complaint and reason for immediate dismissal of the
comlaint.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, July 19 2013 @ 12:20 PM EDT |
I LOVE your parody of Microsoft's arguments!
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
