Re: More FSF hypocrisy

[amicus_curious]

"Rahul Dhesi" <c.c.eiftj@XReXXMoreX.usenet.us.com> wrote in message 
news:gq85rm$gmd$1@blue.rahul.net...
> "amicus_curious" <ACDC@sti.net> writes:
>
> > If something has no commercial value, being free as in beer...
>
> GPL software is supposed to be free as in free speech, not free as in
> free beer.
>
> And also:
>
> The commercial value of software is determined not by what the license
> states, but by what it would cost to use a substitute.
That is wrong.  The commercial value of software is determined by what it 
costs to obtain it, i.e. its price.  If it is free, as in beer, its 
commercial value is zero.  If a substitute has a non-zero price, it will 
need to have a commensurate beneficial use to make it worth its price.


> It's true that a lot of GPL software turns out to be junk with
> essentially no commercial value.  Merely adding a license file
> containing the GPL doesn't turn crap into gold. The usefulness of
> software comes from how well it is written, not fromn a license file.
But that has nothing to do with setting the price.  If the price is set at 
zero, as is usually the case with GPL'd applications, the commercial value 
is zero.  That is not to say that a user cannot obtain beneficial use and so 
regard it as valuable, but he will not pay for it if it can be obtained for 
no cost.

> A lot of GPL software is in fact of high quality and has a very high
> commercial value -- so much so that many companies could not afford to
> buy or create any substitute.
Wrong answer.

> For example, consider the Linux kernel, that is so often misappropriated
> by companies that make small networking devices such as routers. These
> companies can make competitive products only because they are able to
> use the Linux kernel. If they had to find a substitute, they probably
> could not survive in the marketplace, because they would have to spend
> all their revenue, and then some, just to pay for a substitute.
>
> You can think of GPL software as a conditional gift. It's like somebody
> giving you a house to live in, so long as no copyright violations occur
> within the house. You might naively think that the house has no
> commercial value, because it seems to be free. But as soon as you commit
> a copyright violation in the house, the house is no longer yours to live
> in. And now, when you try to find a new place to live in, you realize
> just how much commercial value that house had -- so much that perhaps
> you can't afford to find a substitute, and you might now regret
> committing those copyright violations.
>
> Of course, some people never learn.

If it is free it is not worth money.  Period.  It can be useful, certainly, 
and it can even be crucial, but it has no value in commerce.