> Stephan von Krawczynski wrote:
> > GPL has an inherent long-term strategy, you are talking of short-term,
> > Larry. That does not match. If I am using only GPL-software I know I am
> > able to use it as is in five years from now. If I depend on being nice to
> > commercial companies, it may well turn out, that they are not being nice to
> > me no matter what I do.
>
> A very technocratic view, to be sure. Source code is no guranatee of
> future portability or viability; for the vast, vast majority of users --
> we do care about those, don't we? -- source code is useless.
I doubt that. You are probably right with your exact statement, meaning that
the _user_ cannot make use of the available source code himself (though the
only reason why is that he plays user and refuses to learn anything :-)
, BUT:
the manpower and brain invested in creation of this open source code is not
lost in space. Someone with brain and time can pick it up and revive it at any
given time. And this is a very big advantage in comparison to closed source
which simply vanishes with its producing company - and there already have been
quite a few of those.
So even if your statement looks correct in micro-economics, it is completely
wrong in macro-economics. As Larry already pointed out in another post software
development is often expensive. But it is only expensive if every company has
to re-invent the wheel. If you can simply use the wheel and go on producing a
car "on top" of it, you _saved_ money, time and manpower.
So from that point of view, no piece of crappy software ever written is
useless, as long as its source is _open_. Because I think based on todays'
knowledge you simply do not know which software is really the "wheel" and which
is pure nonsense. Only time can tell.
Regards,
Stephan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/