Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

Subject: Re: [linux-audio-user] Finale for Linux
Date: Fri Jul 09 2004 - 23:28:45 EEST

On 09-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
} RickTaylor_AT_Speakeasy.Net wrote:
} > On 09-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
} > } RickTaylor_AT_Speakeasy.Net wrote:
} > } > On 08-Jul-2004 Chris Pickett wrote:
} > }
} > } > } I've encountered / heard of very few shareware developers who
} > } > } make a decent programmer's wages from their software.
} > } >
} > } > Do you always want to work for someone else? I think there needs to be
} > } > room for both... just like in other businesses.
} > }
} > } Well, I guess there's the whole consulting option for free software
} > } developers, i.e. develop features for a fee. There's nothing that stops
} >
} > That's not programming. I don't know if that matters to you.
} Huh? Developing new features (or squashing bugs) surely counts as
} programming. I don't mean support issues. Like the Dreamworks paying
} Codeweavers example just given by somebody else counts (although perhaps
} the example is bad, because it wasn't free, I dunno).

 "Consulting". Developing features for a fee would fall under the heading of
"comissioned work" ...I suppose you can look at that however you like. I don't
see it as producing ones own work {I guess I wasn't all that clear.}

} > } the developer from keeping the changes private between him and the
} > } client either, if the client is worried about competition. Personally,
} >
} > The GPL?
} All the GPL says is that you must promise to give the source code to
} anybody you provide a binary to, for up to three years, and if they make
} derivations and distribute binaries, they must also promise source code
} to the recipients. Specifically, it does NOT say, "you must make all
} GPL'd software you release available to the public, even if you haven't
} given said public copies of your program." If you pay me $5000 for
} GPL'd software, we can sign an agreement that I won't give it to anyone
} else for 6 months, and neither will you, and we'll both still get the
} source code. This is a key business point, IMO.

 I suppose you and I are reading this a bit differently.

 I have no profit motive though.

} > } I want to work for somebody else, but in an environment where I feel
} > } like it's working for myself, but serving the rest of society (e.g.
} > } university, research institute, whatever). Working for customers and
} > } clients just isn't what I want.
} >
} > I can see that. Art is a bit too "self expressive" to allow one to do that
} > and
} > be content with it. It's just too restrictive. For me anyway...
} It's interesting to think about what leads to good art. Some people
} think all truly great art is born out of hardship and poverty. I myself
} think money often destroys art (programming and music both being forms
} of art).

 I think money tends to change the artists priorities. The work itself needs to
be the first priority.

 Ideally, I think art needs to be sold after it's done. There shouldn't be any
outside constraints, etc... Commercial quality is commercial quality because it
has to take commercial constraints into consideration. {deadlines, workflow,
templating, etc...}

} > } > You are probably right about the greater good... I'm a strong believer
} > } > choice though.
} > }
} > } I guess ultimately I have the opinion that since we have this amazing
} > } free operating system, that's literally been the product of a
} > } generation's work, it doesn't make sense to turn it into a wasteland.
} > } We've already got Windows for that ...
} >
} > I'm thinking more along the lines of a open source system with shareware
} > apps.
} > I think the system itself would go down the tubes if you started getting
} > internal competition, etc.
} I guess ... I guess I've stopped distinguishing between system and
} application. Is Mozilla part of the system? Or is it definitely an
} application? Do you define application by replaceable, non-essential
} part? What's essential? Is X essential? How about bash? Is the linux
} kernel even essential? Can't you run this software with a different
} kernel? I basically view everything as a set of interoperating programs
} -- including the music stuff -- although I might concede that the kernel
} is perhaps the only "true" system component.

 If it's essential for system operation {I think this has to include X because
so many apps are dependant on it.} it's system. I imagine this could vary
depending the function of the system... For the most part I think it's pretty
clear cut.

E-Mail: RickTaylor_AT_Speakeasy.Net
Date: 09-Jul-2004
Time: 15:01:23

This message was sent by XFMail

New Message Reply About this list Date view Thread view Subject view Author view Other groups

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b28 : Fri Jul 09 2004 - 23:35:33 EEST