Johnny Ferguson <hyperfle...@gmail.com> writes: > On 07/22/2010 05:49 AM, David Kastrup wrote: >> Johnny Ferguson<hyperfle...@gmail.com> writes: >> >>> On 07/21/2010 05:24 PM, Bernardo Barros wrote: >>>> They can still make money with GPL. Yes, they are not going to do that. >>> >>> <rant> >>> >>> I think it's far too easy to make a statement like "They can still >>> make money with GPL" especially in light of the fact that there ISN'T >>> a GPL equivalent to FL. >> >> So they are not going to get a free ride on GPLed work ignoring its >> license. I don't see how this is cause for a rant. After all, nobody >> says that people should ignore _their_ license. > > fair enough. License is a license. Still, would the GPL actually > prevent IL from calling a lilypond binary separately?
Unlikely, as long as the unchanged binary is merely called. >> In contrast, "Open Source philosophy" is about all sort of mumbo >> jumbo claiming superior other qualities as a result of providing free >> software. > > I stand corrected then. Still, as nice as it is that the GPL ensures > user freedoms, it doesn't really offer much for the developers (while > there are exceptions, I think this is the status quo) in light of what > it takes away from them. It guarantees them that derivative works will remain available under the same licensing terms. It makes sure that nobody takes _their_ work for a free ride and sells it without contributing back in the same manner. >> So you see a lot of crap on the free software market, because the end >> user jury is still out, and their case has not even started. >> > > I think the jury is in, but the developers don't care to listen. Why should they? It has no jurisdiction. > While true that as they work for free it cannot be expected of them, I > find it perplexing that they would waste their time developing > something in such a way that it is less usable than what the community > wants. Because it is what _they_ want? Why should they bother with a "community" that does nothing for them except call them names and complain? > The solution to that (I believe) comes from the proprietary > world. Having an architect who can specify the design of a > project/program start to finish. Feel free to develop and design and specify a project/program start to finish. Then recruit your minions. >> You might want to look at the history of "Blender" >> <URL:http://www.blender.org/blenderorg/blender-foundation/history/>. >> >> Not everything is as black&white as you want to see it. > > Nor would I ever claim it's black and white. I'm not pro-GPL, nor am I > pro closed-source. I believe that software should aim to benefit > society as best as it can, and I acknowledge that the GPL aims for > that, I simply took issue with the implication that FL could be what > it is as a piece of GPL software. > > Blender is an edge-case, and while I acknowledge its quality and > usefulness as perhaps a sign of potential, I don't believe it's > statistically representative of open-source software. So you did not look at the history of Blender after all and missed the point. > While I don't deny that OSS will mature, I question its ability to > keep up with the curve unless it finds a more effective way to > allocate its resources and manage its design. You are aware that Blender did not keep up with the curve until it found a more effective way to allocate its resources and manage its design by _switching_ _from_ _proprietary_ _development_ _to_ _Open_ _Source_? > That it offers more benefits in the form of potential is not in > question, but that it can offer software on par with commercial > applications is in question. Blender was not able to stay "on par" while being commercial software. > Just personally, I see a correlation between quality and development > style. As a windows user, I used Fireworks and FL Studio. I've come to > linux, and I still haven't found equivalent functionality. Equivalent functionality does not fall magically from the sky, unless you are living in a fairy dream. -- David Kastrup _______________________________________________ lilypond-user mailing list lilypond-user@gnu.org http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-user
