Re: [Haskell-cafe] Re: Why Not Haskell?

"Reilly Hayes" writes:

On Aug 8, 2006, at 1:42 AM, Immanuel Litzroth wrote:

"Reilly Hayes" writes:

I don't understand your argument. How exactly does the GPL get in the way of selling software as an instantiation of business expertise? Are you saying that you have the business expertise but customers still prefer not to buy your software? Doesn't that just mean that your expertise isn't worth much (economic evaluation :-). Or that your idea that they were buying expertise was not correct, they were just buying the software after all, and now they have an alternative?

I failed to communicate my case clearly.  The software *is* what is being sold.  The *reason* it is valuable is the business expertise required to build it.  There are markets with very small populations of people who both understand the business thoroughly and can implement solutions.  It makes software valuable and makes licensing the most effective way to monetize that value.

I am not arguing that licensing would not be a very effective way to monetize value.

Yes I know the business model. Sell them some overpriced software charge them through the nose for support, features, training, installation, updates .... Your resentment against the GPL stems from the fact that it makes squeezing the last buck out of your clients somewhat harder (in some markets). It probably annoys you that you are not dealing with a competitor who is making shitloads of money, making some price fixing or secret agreements not feasable. Your problem is that just as your business practice is not illegal, neither is the GPL.

This paragraph is way out of line.  You have taken a discussion of the merits of using GPL software and turned it into a personal attack.  Attack the argument, not the arguer.  It would be both polite and reasonable to tone down the hostility if you actually want a discussion.

Yeah, it might have been harsh and I apologize. But I just describe what I have seen in some of the companies I worked for.

I don't have a problem with the GPL.  In my professional life,  I am careful to avoid GPL software in those cases where the GPL would interfere with the firm's commercial interests.  I certainly don't resent the GPL or those who choose to release software under the GPL.  In fact, I can imagine wanting to release some kinds of software under the GPL.

The point I was making was that the GPL *does* get in the way of *some* optimal mechanisms of making money.  Which is *fine*.  That is one of the *intents* of the GPL.  The argument that I am trying to counter is the one that says open source is *always* better for everybody. 

I don't think the *intent* of the GPL is to get in the way of some optimal ways of making money. Can you tell me which part of the GPL makes you think? It might have that side-effect though.

Sometimes, the best thing for the owner of the intellectual property is to keep it closed.  There *are* markets where monetization of IP is a zero sum game, or worse (if the IP is public, nobody makes any money).

I wonder who you see as the participants in this game? A worse than zero sum game might be interesting if you are one of the people who score positive and some of the other people have to pay for it. Gambling is a fine example.

I'm not making (or getting involved in) the moral argument about free or open software.  I will point out that the current good health of Haskell owes a great deal to Microsoft through the computer scientists they employ.  I'm sure Haskell has benefitted from the largesse of other companies as well.

That is definitely wrong. Haskell would be in even greater shape if some people who shall remain unnamed had not gone over to Microsoft. I foresee an interesting discussion here.

I don't see how you can say Haskell would be better OR worse off if people hadn't gone to work for Microsoft.  It's an entirely hypothetical case and it's just not knowable.  My point is much simpler.  Haskell & GHC do benefit from the efforts of people being paid by Microsoft.  Microsoft is planning to hire a full-time contractor to work on GHC.

The snarky comment about "people who shall remain unnamed" is rude. I did not mean to be rude, and would like to apologize if anyone felt

It seems irony gets lost so easily in these conversations. You have no way of knowing what the state of haskell would have been had certain key contributors to GHC and Haskell not taken jobs at Microsoft. Therefore you statement is meaningless and only good for producing approving nods among people who already agree with what you say. personally attacked by this. Immanuel -- *************************************************************************** I can, I can't. Tubbs Tattsyrup -- Immanuel Litzroth Software Development Engineer Enfocus Software Antwerpsesteenweg 41-45 9000 Gent Belgium Voice: +32 9 269 23 90 Fax : +32 9 269 16 91 Email: Immanuell@enfocus.be web : www.enfocus.be ***************************************************************************