At work we have a glovebox running DOS. The software is written in MS/GW/Q basic and only works with a specific set of ISA IO cards. The manufacturer is long gone but one of their techs bought out the remainder and now gate keeps the software. He has the source but refuses to update, sell, license or release it. Last we spoke to him he wanted $20000 to write a new control program in visual basic using a PCI card and refused to release source code. We flat out said no. The plan is once there are no more spare parts on the shelf the whole thing is getting gutted and a modern PLC system installed in-house.
I agree. I thought Stallman was a nut (and in most respects I still definitely do) but since working with proprietary systems of the 80s and 90s I've realized his hardline free software stance is a direct response to companies like SCO.
I got into free software relatively early in my life and it was like watching a parody film before the original.
I really don't think $20k is unreasonable to rewrite something for a manufacturer. Chances are they'd change the scope, make requests and he'd need to modernize it and I can easily see something like that taking 1-2 months.. at which point $20k could be very reasonable vs the time and effort it'd take to find someone completely new to your system.
If I was the company though I would make sure that them providing the new source would be part of that $20k though or an agreement that when he no longer offers his services personally, regardless of whether he sells the company or not, that he will also release the source code to them if they are unable to negotiate for it upfront.
I think that would be fair and fulfill both parties concerns.
I personally prefer open sourced solutions as well, but in business that just isn't always practical.
So he should work for free in order for some company to make money? If that is what FSF is for then it is not very usrful for devs.
He shoulf provide the source code in 3rd party escrow but considering that company doesnt want to negotiate at all, he should not just give them the source for free.
Comments
At work we have a glovebox running DOS. The software is written in MS/GW/Q basic and only works with a specific set of ISA IO cards. The manufacturer is long gone but one of their techs bought out the remainder and now gate keeps the software. He has the source but refuses to update, sell, license or release it. Last we spoke to him he wanted $20000 to write a new control program in visual basic using a PCI card and refused to release source code. We flat out said no. The plan is once there are no more spare parts on the shelf the whole thing is getting gutted and a modern PLC system installed in-house.
Such stories are exactly the reason why Stallman created FSF.
I agree. I thought Stallman was a nut (and in most respects I still definitely do) but since working with proprietary systems of the 80s and 90s I've realized his hardline free software stance is a direct response to companies like SCO.
I got into free software relatively early in my life and it was like watching a parody film before the original.
I really don't think $20k is unreasonable to rewrite something for a manufacturer. Chances are they'd change the scope, make requests and he'd need to modernize it and I can easily see something like that taking 1-2 months.. at which point $20k could be very reasonable vs the time and effort it'd take to find someone completely new to your system.
If I was the company though I would make sure that them providing the new source would be part of that $20k though or an agreement that when he no longer offers his services personally, regardless of whether he sells the company or not, that he will also release the source code to them if they are unable to negotiate for it upfront.
I think that would be fair and fulfill both parties concerns.
I personally prefer open sourced solutions as well, but in business that just isn't always practical.
So he should work for free in order for some company to make money? If that is what FSF is for then it is not very usrful for devs. He shoulf provide the source code in 3rd party escrow but considering that company doesnt want to negotiate at all, he should not just give them the source for free.
Free software is not about price, it's about freedom. It can and should be paid for.