OSNews

Your links point to IBM. They might be in a specific situation, as you have said, they are selling services. But, majority of companies that offer software are selling software. The developers in those companies are likely to have contracts that prevent them from sharing the code.

IBM has given up patents, but they still have proprietary software.

You could mention Sun, as a better example. Sun software sales were not going well.

Some people might like to collaborate, it may give additional value to their lives, but will not pay the bills.

I am trying to say that if GPL was more business friendly, GPL projects would attract more developers and more investments.

If you want to argue this from an eonomic perspective, then it is surely relevant to point out that for the vast majority of people and businesses, software is not a profit center but a mere expense.

From that perspective, it makes a lot more sense fro and economy to use Open Source and collaboration. The economic benefits are enormous.

But, even from a purely blinkered perspective of just developers, it is arguably easier to sell services to support software than it is to sell the software itself. Selling services people will readily pay for expertise. Selling closed-source software (trade secrets) is a much harder sell ... your customers are not in control of their own computing equipment or their own data.

For most of the history of software and computers, the software has been free and the software houses sold services and expertise. It has only been since little Billy Gates just didn't get this, and he spat the dummy when people didn't do things his way, that there has been a shift away from that concept.