KARP@SUMEX-AIM.STANFORD.EDU (Peter Karp) (10/06/87)
I don't wish to belabor this topic, but David Meile's <DAVIDLI%SIMVAX.BITNET@forsythe.stanford.edu> recent comments seem to indicate a misunderstanding of my earlier points. The bottom line is that I have serious disagreements with Stallman's philosophy on software authoring and distribution. I chose to bring these disagreements to your attention to inspire debate, since the choice of what software to install on his or her system is clearly an important one for every system administrator. The core of the disagreement is that I fail to see why Stallman is pushing so hard for free software as opposed to free everything, e.g., free hardware. When you pay half a million dollars for the new Vax they just rolled out onto your machine room floor, the principle cost is not the silicon and copper and plastic that weighs half a ton. It's the education, facilities used by, and time spent by the hardware designers who figured out how to make it work, how to make it work fast, how to manufacture it, and how to fix it when it breaks. Of course, there are many other costs as well, but the point is that you're paying for labor, for intellectual activity, just as when you pay for software. I have yet to see convincing arguments to distiguish between giving away software versus giving away anything that any human produces, including Stallman's GNU manifesto. You either reward incentive of any kind, or you don't. Our society has chosen to reward intellectual productivity through copyrights and patents for just this reason. I will also repeat that I have no love of overpriced software, nor of over-restrictive licensing policies. But there's clearly a middle ground between this extreme and Stallman's extreme of giving software away. For example, many organizations now refuse to purchase software which stops working at a certain time unless you purchase and install a special update which proves that you've renewed your license. I feel that this refusal is valid and will eliminate this overly restrictive policy. In addition, I personally am involved in an effort to develop and distribute a software system at a much more reasonable price than that distributed by a company famous for its overpriced software. This, I believe, is a much more reasonable tack to take. Read on if you care to see read my comments on David's points. [ Karp's original comments double-indented; Meile's comments once-indented] I am against the concept of a foundation whose purpose is to provide free software. I expect, then, that you are willing to endorse payment of royalties to the government (local/state/federal) for every software "product" that has made its way into the commercial market which has been based in part on research and development paid for by public funds. (Unix comes immediately to mind ...) Sure, I have no problem with this policy. But apparently the government does not choose to require this. GNU Emacs ... I am a bit annoyed that they are distributing this for free ... competing unfairly ... The history of Emacs is such that Mr. Stallman, et al, have every right to distribute it as they see fit. Mr. Stallman isn't receiving royalties from Gosling Emacs (the example you mentioned), so why should he be concerned if people use GNU Emacs to the detriment of Gosling? Business is NOT a playing field, where everyone agrees to play "fair". I never said Stallman has no right to distribute it as they see fit; I said that I disagree with their choice to exercise this right. Stallman put the original Emacs in the public domain, so we shouldn't expect him to receive royalties on it. Gosling expended considerable effort porting it to Unix and improving it, and thus in my opinion deserves to receive royalties on it. I see, so if business isn't fair then you don't mind paying $12,000 for a C compiler, right? The whole point here is to discuss what's a desireable state of affairs. Isn't it the right of an author to dispose of a work as the author sees fit? Of course it's the author's right; again, I'm arguing that this is not a good idea and does not result from a particularly coherent philosophy. I would suggest that it is verging on the point of libel to imply the efforts of the Free Software Foundation are "thievery". You acknowledge that you are NOT a lawyer, so you have no real idea of the legal implications you are discussing. My point in stressing that I am not a lawyer was to emphasize that I was not accusing anyone of legal wrongdoing. But I'm still free to argue about whether I think someone's actions and intensions (of which I have some evidence from the GNU Manifesto) appear productive. Perhaps my choice of the term "thievery" was not a good one - again, I wasn't implying any legal wrongdoing. But, I might not be upset if laws did exist to make this thievery. AT&T did not develop Unix in its entirety, nor the implementation of many of the individual utilities. These were developed over a course of years by a cooperative group of universities, colleges, AT&T and other parties. ... As far as I can tell, none of the co-developers have been "rewarded for their incentive" through royalties on each Unix license. Well the co-developers apparently chose not to claim any rights to the software they developed. It may be that each individual contributed such a small piece that it would have been infeasible to divide it up. But I have no problem in principle with the idea of dividing it up. The general point here is that if people are free to copy your hard-won techniques, they rob you of some of the incentive for developing new techniques in the first place. As far as it goes, I agree with you here. However, recreating functionality, using better techniques, increasing functionality -- all of these are valid ways of producing software, as any company marketing software will tell you. "How far it goes" is precisely what I'm trying to figure out, but your arguments haven't really helped me in making this decision. Finally, yes, I've (re-) read the GNU Manifesto. I don't find it particularly convincing. Peter -------
CCSO-ALL@GUNTER-ADAM.ARPA (10/08/87)
Hi, We have read with interest the recent discussion on free software. The information about the Free Software Foundation is new to us and we would like to learn more. Maybe some knowledgeable person could enlighten those of us who are new to INFO-VAX and the FSF concept. Of specific interest would be the How, When, Where, etc., of obtaining membership to/software from the FSF, where we can get a copy of the GNU Manifesto, what type of software is available, etc. Also, having just received a DEC C compiler for our VAX 11/785 running VMS, we would be interested in known problem areas and, if possible, how to avoid them or work around them. Mitch Mlinar's comments about welcoming a REAL C compiler for the VAX have us somewhat concerned. Thanks for your help, Bob