[Discuss] Profiting from GPL software (was: Hey FCC, Don't Lock Down Our Wi-Fi Routers | WIRED)

[Mike Small]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 12:03:41PM -0500, Steve Litt wrote:
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015 14:40:52 -0500
> Rich Pieri <richard.pieri at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> > I did not say you can't try to charge money for it. I said that you 
> > can't make a profit from trying to sell it. Again I ask: what is 
> > dishonest about this statement?
> 
> Nothing that I see. I reached the same conclusion more than a decade
> ago. After you sell your first copy, you're competing against zero cost
> copies of your product.
> 
> Here are some articles I've written (a long time ago) on the subject.
> 
> http://www.troubleshooters.com/tpromag/200201/200201.htm
> 
> SteveT

"Obviously there's little profit potential selling a product whose very
license makes every customer your competitor in the sale of the product."

There is at least one counter example. I used to have to interface to a
windows pdf print driver named pdfcreator. Shudder, I can't write any
more about why without banging my head on my desk, but the real work
of the product is done by ghostscript which is AGPLed. If I recall rightly
it is possible to get pdfforge's source code (if you like reading
C# for some reason). You can get an old copy in a download on their
site or request a new copy in writing or something like that. So
they're in compliance more or less, if not in the spirit then in the
letter.

In fact if you look at their website you'd never know it's free software:
http://www.pdfforge.org/

They seem to be doing okay. Lots of people use their (ahem, L. Peter
Deutch's) stuff and they appear to still exist at least.

Perhaps the key is...

1. have dumb users that won't compete with you and think of s/w as they
   do any other consumer item
2. distribute your software to Windows users (see #1)
3. don't go out of your way to tell anyone what's going on

Looking at the wikipedia page for ghostscript there's mention of two
companies, one named Alladin and one named Artifex. Based on the
fact that the Artifex link goes via the wayback machine I'm going
to guess there's good fodder here in the ghostscript story for
someone who wants to argue the original point again. The trouble
I have with the argument is that I don't care if commercial entities
survive selling GPL software as long as 1. I have a job and 2.
there is free software I want to use.  Well except when you think
of who wrote ghostscript it seems pretty unfair where the money
goes. But that's life. Look at how jazz and classical musicians
fare compared to whoever they play at the mall these days. Not sure
this is a problem particular to free sofware or software at all is
what I mean.

-- 
Mike Small
smallm at sdf.org