Re: Minivend vs Others Options

[Birgitt Funk <birgitt@minivend.com>]

On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Raj Goel wrote:

> > > > >  Our technology is in use at various places, including a few large 
> > > > > sites.
> > > > 
> > > > That's nice. Could someone actually provide URLs and specifics, instead of
> > > > the usual vague 'few large sites'.
> > > 
> > > 	Love to, but contractual obligations prevent us from doing so.
> > > 
> > > 	Some companies prefer not to advertise they use MV, PERL, etc. on
> > > their sites.
> > > 
> > 
> > Yep, that's why it should be documented, i.e. given proof on a site
> > which is under the umbrella of the documentation project of MiniVend.
> > 
> > Would love to know with what argument those companies come up to
> > justify their contracts they set up with you.
> 

> 	Why?  Because it isn't important what tool was used to create the
> end result.

Really ? ... really, really ? ...8-)

> The exceptions are, where your contractual obligations require
> you to acknowledge the tool, i.e., movie contracts where a software or 
> hardware firm will give hardware/software/services in return for
> onscreen recognition.
> 

That's just one way of non-cash sort of payment for your services. 
But from that you can't draw the conclusion in the opposite direction.

What would the movie company loose in business if it had not to
advertise your services/hardware/software ? Does the film sells
better with the add ? From what I know, most people want to see the
film and pay for that and couldn't care less for the adds.

If without your services/software/hardware the film could not
have been produced at all, this kind of handshake agreement to
pay for your services is just a work-around to help both sides.

> 	Secondly, while MV advocates, including myself, would like others
> to  acknowledge the use of MV, it is in the corporation's best interest
> NOT to disclose such information.  
> 	- Less attackers know about you, less they can use to break you
> 	  (weak argument, but security through obscurity has a long history)
> 

What kind of security is that supposed to be ?

Very weak argument, one, no other industry or science would be allowed to
use that easily. Just try to use it in the fields of biochemistry, 
medicine or in the pharmaceutical industry and look were you would end up
obscuring your production methods without giving proof that the product
or services they sell are very safe and produce no harm.


> 	- If something works well for you, why advertise it?  
> 	  The less your competition knows about YOUR best practices,
> 	  the more likely they'll make bad choices.  
> 

Matter of ethics, the argument makes sense only in the world where
software developers can sell their products or where they develop
software for a company being on salary. 

If you try and use it for software which was developed on your
own time and donated under GPL to the public, it simply turns out
to be unfair to use it to your own advantage without ackknowledging
it, IMHO. That should be the least you could do. (Please I don't
mean you in a personal sense, I mean a company in general).

Compare using GPL software with using the Library of Congress. 

The public library is maintained by taxpayer's money. Now tell me,
with what the development, maintencance and documentation of GPL 
and open source software is paid for ? If it is used by the public
for any purpose including commercial ones, should the public not
pay their dues in some way ?

You look at the source code, you use it at no cost, you even cry out 
for enduser's type of documentation (I do - just imagine all the books
in the Library of Congress thrown on a big pile and greeting the 
visitors  on the entry with RTFM 8-)), but you don't give back
something ?

A scientist uses all the material he can find in LC, goes back, uses
his knowledge gained with help of the matrial found to the advantage
of his company to develop a product they sell for a profit. Then the
company tries to hide the existence of the Library of Congress and the
fact they used the library ? 8-)


> 	- Flexiblity
> 	  If you don't know what I'm using, I can change the backend, and
> 	  may do so, as business needs require.  No one tool/software/product
> 	  is perfect.  MV works wonderfully today,  Tomorrow brings no such
> 	  guarantees.
> 

Sure not, nor is MV static, MV changes all the time, can adapt and
be customized to your needs. That's what is potentially so nice about 
it, as it makes customizing a bit easier for you too, or not ?

Like Perl, you can do quite a bit, more or less almost anything you want
dependent on your mastery of Perl. For a subset of tasks this might
turn out to be true for MV as well, or not ?

May be you are talking about the possible advantage of being the
first one on the internet using a new money-saving GPL'ed tool. 
What's the real role of the time factor  ? 

Nothing much on the long run, IMHO. Let's say a company
like amazon.com would have made its business success just because
it had used GPL'ed software and databases for the first time ever.

There is certainly the "first-timer" syndrom and the "getting a
great deal with GPL'ed no-cost" software factor. But I would doubt
very much that those two factors have any much say for your long
term business success. 

Basically there is no much reason to have too or more amazon.com-like
businesses on the internet, because they all would sell the same items
worldwide, and only the one who can handle the distribution/delivery
system of the physical goods, will make it on the long run.

So, it is not really the short term advantage of being the first, and
cutting a deal with GPL'ed software for the one big worldwide corporation
who has already occupied the first seat among online dealers. It is the
question, if we need more than a handful online dealers on the
internet at all.

Luckily there are thousands of money-saving uses of GPL'ed software
packages internally for businesses and governmental services, so I do 
not see why acknowledging usage of GPL'ed software would harm anyone else
besides businesses who sell comparable commercial software.

> > On the one side they seem to love to take advantage of a no-cost,
> > open source software package, apparently being happy and successfully
> > running it with the help of your consultancy, and on the other side 
> > they should have a valid reason NOT to say/admit what they used ? I
> > just don't understand that logic. Can someone help me with that, please ?
> 
> 	Some of the companies, spent large $$$ building an alternative 
> solution, and saw the light later on.  Others have a legal mandate to
> treat corporate data infrastructure as a corporate secret.
> 
> 	Oh, and quite a few of them give back to the OSS community by
> donating cash, resources, developers or supporting the authors.  I know
> I'm happy to bring Mike in when needed and am happy to pay his per diem
> rates.
> 

Certainly, I know that, but that conversation has nothing to do with
specifically supporting MV or Mike Heins, it is a matter of principle
for me to understand, if the funding of the OSS community which donates
valuable material to the public, shouldn't be also funded by the
public. Like paying $1.00 entry fees to the Library of Congress to
maintain it or (indirectly) paying with your taxes.

If I understand it correctly there are two main reasons for OSS
development, one is the scientific need to produce safer, more reliable
software, which is of such complexity that openess and worldwide volunteer
participation via the internet is simply the only way to accomplish it.
The fact that many software houses make changes and give formerly
proprietary code away as open source code, supports that they
acknowledge that need. 

The other reason is political or economical, that is to free the
development of software from the grip of one or a handful international
corporations and make resources and software economically affordable to
small businesses with less financial power. Thus OSS development would
support small business ownership and diversity.

The need of OSS being not only open, but also no-cost, is much harder
to understand, IMHO. If the collective brain of programmers world wide
produce OSS and they release it at no cost to the public for anyone
to use for whatever purpose, then the public has to fund it. Otherwise
OSS developmnet would turn out to be the first energy producing perpetuum
mobile out of nothing. 8-) 

Oops, I forgot that somewhere in the archives, there was someone 
attributing some magic to the MV tags. May be that's what it is,
magic science with Voodoo economic makes a perpetuum mobile a
reality. 8-)

Apologies for starting to run into an off-topic thread on this
technical list and ending it with a bad joke. I hope I am not
<plonked>. My sense of fairness needed an outlet to voice some
nagging doubts, which distract me from doing some real work.  
Sorry for that.

Birgitt Funk