RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
Jim Choate wrote:
The only objection to releasing an API is to stifle competition, *THAT* is a bad thing.
There are a number of other reasons -- principally support and backwards compatibility costs. If you release an API for a commercial application for ISVs, you better make sure it is relatively bug-free and mature. As soon as someone else's code relies on that API, you are stuck with making sure it continues to work as the product evolves. There is nothing wrong with public and private APIs, and we hope that the ad hoc private APIs from some midnight-oil-burning-hack to get the product to ship on time that have useful functionality will eventually be integrated into a mature public API. Modular OOP design means you have lots of interfaces, you don't necessarily want people to be able to dig in-between all the pieces of your program -- often you cannot protect application/data integrity if they do. It's like custom software versus shrink-wrap. I write a lot of custom software, it works for what it needs to do for a specific scenario, if that changes I modify and recompile. There is a *lot* of work -- time, money, *my* cost -- to take that custom application and make it flexible and generic enough to be shrink-wrap and work in all scenarios. And if I don't do it well enough I have a major support/liability problem. Same applies to public vs private APIs.
The idea from a free-market perspective:
Had Microsoft, for example, been required to publish their API's by the market we wouldn't be spending all this effort
You state free-market and then you are *requiring* someone to do something? How do you resolve that contradiction? Require = Force != Free[dom] As far as *commercial* software vendors go, Microsoft is one of the better companies for publishing APIs and creating useful APIs and tools for Rapid Application Development. Do you subscribe to MSDN? Please do before you crucify Microsoft for lack of APIs, if anything they have too many.
Bottem line, if you believe in a free-market (which requires fair competition to work and prevent monopolies)
Pure speculative nonsense contrary to empirical evidence. Market distortions the government creates are far worse than any Wonderland monopoly you can dream up that will exist in a true free market. Matt
At 8:41 PM -0500 9/29/98, Matthew James Gering wrote:
Jim Choate wrote:
Had Microsoft, for example, been required to publish their API's by the market we wouldn't be spending all this effort ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
You state free-market and then you are *requiring* someone to do something? How do you resolve that contradiction? Require = Force != Free[dom]
Required as in purchasers large and small saying "You don't include your source code, we won't buy it". Sort of like how restraunts are forced (usually) to provide dinnerware, sure, they could MAKE you bring your own fork & plate, but they wouldn't be too popular.
As far as *commercial* software vendors go, Microsoft is one of the better companies for publishing APIs and creating useful APIs and tools for Rapid Application Development. Do you subscribe to MSDN? Please do before you crucify Microsoft for lack of APIs, if anything they have too many.
"BETTER"? Remember "Undocumented Dos"? Wasn't there a (couple) windows versions? Microsoft sells/gives away it's API so that it can find competent programmers to hire and lock away in tiny rooms. -- petro@playboy.com----for work related issues. I don't speak for Playboy. petro@bounty.org-----for everthing else. They wouldn't like that. They REALLY Economic speech IS political speech. wouldn't like that.
participants (2)
-
Matthew James Gering
-
Petro