[Fwd: Re: BOUNCE diy_efi at diy-efi.org: Approval required: (fwd)]

[steve ravet]

> Since the above sketch purports to be responding to Bruce's request for
> "education" on the GPL, I'll try to mention a few things left out of
> Steve's warm embrace of anything GNU.
> 
> The fact remains that anyone wanting to copy BruceB's design and sell it
> for profit, MAY freely under the GPL. The logic above says, "well, if
> BruceB doesn't like how much they're profitting from his work, then
> BruceB can just compete with them and undercut their price". Sure, if
> BruceB feels his life is well-spent that way.

You understand how it works -- this part must not have been left out of
my warm embrace.  If Bruce wants to make Megaquirt into a Holley or
Howell then he'd better not put it under GPL.  If Bruce wants a cheap
EFI system that proliferates and is contributed to and improved upon by
people all over the world the GPL is a good bet.  Bruce choses to
compete if he wants -- plenty of people would prefer to buy from the
originator.  Lots of people make their living from shareware also.

> 
> The fact also remains that there is a very large contingent of people who
> want the hardware "ready-made" for them; as BruceB observed elsewhere,
> there *is* a large market. That's true for the DIY-WB and also the MS.
> Would be also for things like injector driver interfaces, etc. So the
> argument that if there's "too much profit", the buyer would simply build
> it themselves doesn't wash. If such designs are done under GPL, they
> *will* be commercialized (if there is a market, they sure will be), and
> the profits will be whatever the market will bear.

My embrace included this info also.  Since the hard part (design and
layout) are done there will be plenty of people servicing this market
keeping the price low.  How many $25 PIC programmers are there out
there?  You can buy one built for less than what you'd pay for just the
parts.

> 
> GPL is good for someone who wants to spawn an idea and see it matured
> into commercial or widespread existence by others, but doesn't want to be
> involved with it any further than that, AND doesn't mind others taking
> their work gratus and making a profit from it. It sucks if you want to
> keep "bidness" and the "money" out of the whole thing, and especially if
> you are trying to constrain "users" of your intellectual property to
> involve themselves in the DIY process, instead of just the BIY process
> (as in, buy it yourself).

I'm going to guess that you've never contributed to the free software
community.  I have:
* a program that calculates and displays in 3d radiation patterns of
regular and irregular antenna arrays.  Plus calculations such as
impedances of various types of printed waveguides, waveguide modes,
etc.  Runs on Windows and Unix by using the "V" windowing package
(another GNU freebie).
* a program to test serial ports via a special loopback cable (simple,
but the first one I ever released).
* the PIC code and design for the pulse width meter.

If I saw that antenna software distributed with a book I'd be tickled. 
The author didn't steal it, I gave it away.  This is how sharing works
-- "Here, take this, free of charge and do whatever you like with it",
not "anything you do related to my project belongs to me".  Your
statements regarding GPL have no substance because you've never used it.

My warm embrace also discussed how GPL promotes DIY.  GCC has all but
eliminated other unix C compilers.  Linux is close to doing the same for
unix on the desktop, and has taken real marketshare away from
Microsoft.  How about if you provide a counterpoint of a real example
where the GPL has inhibited DIY?

> 
> The bottom line of this "new policy" of edicting the GPL or else "you're
> commercial", is to insist that any future DIY project creators *mustn't*
> care about others profiting from their work. But shoot, if you don't care
> about entreprenureal parasites like Peter feeding off of your work, be my
> guest. :)

I shouldn't have to reproduce the new commercial policy here.  It's
front and center on the WWW page.  A commercial project isn't banned
from the list, and WBO2 isn't banned, and commercial doesn't mean that
you can't give it away if you want.  Commercial simply means the owner
can't promote his own product on the list.  He's free to discuss
technical aspects of it as long as it's on charter, and as long as
someone else starts the conversation by asking about it.

None of this was left out -- This is your idle speculation versus my
actual experience with a license that works, with plenty of real world
examples that show it does!

--steve
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from diy_efi, send "unsubscribe diy_efi" (without the quotes)
in the body of a message (not the subject) to majordomo at lists.diy-efi.org