Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Free & Proprietary

mattmaroon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–98 of 98 posts

Re: Free & Proprietary

#91

Post by mattmaroon »

bayareaguy wrote: post #89
mattmaroon wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure I see your point with the age thing. Is it relevant whether or not an open source project of a given age is better than a proprietary one of the same age? The economics of proprietary software ensure that there will generally be older versions in nearly every niche (especially consumer facing). Also, if GIMP can't catch up in 14 years, will it ever? That's basically infinity in the software industry.

Is it relevant whether or not an open source project of a given age is better than a proprietary one of the same age? We all know initial conditions are very important. Once a community adapts to the rules of a given open source or proprietary application it rarely decides to change even when the alternative may be superior in some way. Also, if GIMP can't catch up in 14 years, will it ever? That's basically infinity…

"What is obvious to me is that some proprietary companies have made obscene profits by preventing fair competition to keep prices artificially high and stop people from switching to lower cost or free alternatives."

Vendor lock-in is not new, and not exclusive to software by any means. It's an ages old tactic, and one that's been considered fair game forever. A corporation out to make profits is foolish to not use it where possible.

You can't ever stop someone from switching to cheaper or free alternatives. You can only make your product so good (if only through legacy support) that the cost of switching is higher than the cost of buying your product. This, again, is neither new nor unfair.

Abusing near-monopolies (which MS did) is unfair, but has nothing to do with proprietary vs. free. It's perfectly possible to have proprietary software without that. It's like the difference between drinking sensibly and drinking and driving.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#92

Post by andreyf »

pg wrote: post #15
sspencer wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was that available in 2006? If so, I guess he just meant the book, which is even more bizarre. So he won't sign any book not published by a "free as in speech" publishing house? Curiouser and curiouser.

Sure, that file hasn't been changed in years. I wonder if the problem is that just saying people can do whatever they want with code seems to him too unrestrictive.

I wonder if the problem is that just saying people can do whatever they want with code seems to him too unrestrictive.

I doubt it. Both the MIT and BSD licenses are listed as 'free software' licenses on the FSF website: http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/

Re: Free & Proprietary

#93

Post by andreyf »

mattmaroon wrote: post #79
andreyf wrote: post #37

It's hard to argue that the man who was the world’s richest for decades could have somehow done better for himself or his shareholders, or the world at large. Easy - if he had pushed Microsoft to release an open standard instead of .doc, .xls, et cetra, he would have done better for the world at large by leaving a competitive market for office products. Another - if he had insisted IE6 were standards-compliant and op…

Lol. There aren't short term gains for dominating Office. There are billions of dollars per year for decades. Creating a competitive market would be the worst thing he could have done for himself and his shareholders (though probably a good thing for the world).

Creating a competitive market would be the worst thing he could have done for himself and his shareholders (though probably a good thing for the world).

That would be a great argument for legally enforcing (certain) software be F/OSS...

Re: Free & Proprietary

#94

Post by bayareaguy »

mattmaroon wrote: post #91
bayareaguy wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it relevant whether or not an open source project of a given age is better than a proprietary one of the same age? We all know initial conditions are very important. Once a community adapts to the rules of a given open source or proprietary application it rarely decides to change even when the alternative may be superior in some way. Also, if GIMP can't catch up in 14 years, will it ever? That's basically infinity…

"What is obvious to me is that some proprietary companies have made obscene profits by preventing fair competition to keep prices artificially high and stop people from switching to lower cost or free alternatives." Vendor lock-in is not new, and not exclusive to software by any means. It's an ages old tactic, and one that's been considered fair game forever. A corporation out to make profits is foolish to not use it…

You may personally think vendor lock-in is a fair tactic but if you bother to do a little research you'll find some significant court decisions opposing that view (including the one against MS).

Still, I'm a little confused that you see no relationship between monopolies and licensing given that MS was convicted of abusing its monopoly to dictate licensing terms to OEMs.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#95

Post by mattmaroon »

bayareaguy wrote: post #94
mattmaroon wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What is obvious to me is that some proprietary companies have made obscene profits by preventing fair competition to keep prices artificially high and stop people from switching to lower cost or free alternatives." Vendor lock-in is not new, and not exclusive to software by any means. It's an ages old tactic, and one that's been considered fair game forever. A corporation out to make profits is foolish to not use it…

You may personally think vendor lock-in is a fair tactic but if you bother to do a little research you'll find some significant court decisions opposing that view (including the one against MS). Still, I'm a little confused that you see no relationship between monopolies and licensing given that MS was convicted of abusing its monopoly to dictate licensing terms to OEMs.

I'm certainly not saying that Microsoft played entirely by the books. They clearly didn't. They went well beyond standard vendor lock-in. Things like lock-in that are considered fair game in a competitive market are not when a monopoly is involved.

I just don't think it's fair to blame proprietary software for Microsoft's sins.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#96

Post by mattmaroon »

andreyf wrote: post #93
mattmaroon wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lol. There aren't short term gains for dominating Office. There are billions of dollars per year for decades. Creating a competitive market would be the worst thing he could have done for himself and his shareholders (though probably a good thing for the world).

Creating a competitive market would be the worst thing he could have done for himself and his shareholders (though probably a good thing for the world). That would be a great argument for legally enforcing (certain) software be F/OSS...

Well, maybe enforcing that once a proprietary standard creates a huge market and then nearly monopolizes it. I'm certainly not arguing in favor of monopolies.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#97

Post by bitdiddle »

pg wrote: post #28
bitdiddle wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what's your definition of "free"? I believe FSF code, as in GPL is free. There are four freedoms that come with it. The only restriction is that one can't deny others the same freedoms. You're also free not to use it. I find it interesting that so many criticize RMS for his character and style. I find myself very tolerant of people who are very talented programmers. I think RMS is a pretty decent programmer. Emacs…

The only restriction is that one can't deny others the same freedoms. The GPL is more restrictive than that. If one puts code online and says "do whatever you want with it," everyone has the same freedom to use it. No one can deny anyone else the freedom to use it, short of blocking access to the server.

What I meant is that one can't deny others those same 4 freedoms, which include modifying and distributing the changes.

I like to think that what folks refer to as its' "viral" nature is really the preservation of freedom. It strikes me that this license more than any other protects the rights of programmers and enables them to earn a living. This might seem counterintuitive, and it certainly is counter to the propaganda that often spread about communism and programmers earning a living, but much of that stems from the way corporations are structured as legal entities.

Re: Free & Proprietary

#98

Post by bayareaguy »

mattmaroon wrote: post #95
bayareaguy wrote: post #94

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You may personally think vendor lock-in is a fair tactic but if you bother to do a little research you'll find some significant court decisions opposing that view (including the one against MS). Still, I'm a little confused that you see no relationship between monopolies and licensing given that MS was convicted of abusing its monopoly to dictate licensing terms to OEMs.

I'm certainly not saying that Microsoft played entirely by the books. They clearly didn't. They went well beyond standard vendor lock-in. Things like lock-in that are considered fair game in a competitive market are not when a monopoly is involved. I just don't think it's fair to blame proprietary software for Microsoft's sins.

Microsoft is not the only sinner, they are just the most publicized one. The profit made by Microsoft and the others in the Software Top 100 - http://www.softwaretop100.org/list.php?page=1 is probably several times higher than it would be if not for lock-in and other anti-competitive practices. Those unfair profits are effectively a hardware tax which transfer wealth away from the consumers and businesses who would have presumably spent it on their own interests.
Post reply on HN