rms@AI.MIT.EDU (06/08/89)
Someone sent me this message: You write: > The difference between this and China is a matter of degree. The > spirit is the same. I disagree. Your definitions of ``free'' and ``freedom'' intrigue me. Here you are conducting a holy war against ``evil software hoarders''... This indicates a confusion of two separate issues which I suspect shows I didn't distinguish them clearly enough. So I will try to do so now. For 6 years I have been working on a project to make software free, but not by coercing anyone, only by writing free software. And, in general, they have not tried to coerce me either. I believe software should be free. But my message quoted above is about a different issue, where traditionally accepted rights are in danger. Apple and others wish to take away people's freedom to write software, whether free or not. And Apple does plan to use coercion to get their way, if they can. They hope to get injunctions, and then others will have the choice of obeying Apple or being imprisoned.
lear@NET.BIO.NET (Eliot Lear) (06/08/89)
[In response to rms's message of Wed, 7 Jun 89 13:21:46 EDT] First of all, you cut me off in mid stream, taking me out of context and then posted a reply to a large group of people. > I disagree. Your definitions of ``free'' and ``freedom'' intrigue me. > Here you are conducting a holy war against ``evil software hoarders''... If you look at the rest of the sentence, I said (in essence) that you would encroach upon others' livelihood by their talents. I don't really agree with Apple on this particular issue because I believe ``Look and Feel'' is an idea. The argument here is whether one should have the right to protect her ``intellectual property''. > Free software contributes more to society than proprietary software, > with the same amount of work. Therefore, free software should have > more incentive than proprietary software. In your argument for the good of society, you place the responsibility for its good on the good nature of individuals. Additionally you burden them with the requirement that they find some other means to make a living which, by the way, could be just as bad or worse than ``software hoarding''. What makes you think this will succeed? The goal of the copyright laws was to protect and advance the good of society by having that good rely on greed, part of human nature. So far, this has worked quite well. Any attempts to change human nature would be artificial and temporary, at best. So why bother? And again, what is wrong with the current system? What is the difference between software hoarding and hardware hoarding? And how are all the ``hoarders'' to survive if they may not use their resourcefulness to make an income? What about people who work towards the creation of weapons (wittingly or not)? They may not hold any copyrights. I don't really have a problem with what FSF is doing. But there has yet to really be a good argument against the free market system. If the price on a decent product is overinflated, then there is room for others to produce, and others will. FSF is just another competitor to the commercial compilers. What bothers me is that so many people have put so much time and effort into the FSF only to have their work not be used, thereby causing others to have to expend more effort into writing yet another piece of software. In the end, this is self defeating. [Incidentally, there are interesting articles on the subject of Look and Feel in last month's CACM, and the SIGCHI Proceedings. Should people be allowed to copyright books?] Eliot Lear
rms@AI.MIT.EDU (06/08/89)
First of all, you cut me off in mid stream, taking me out of context
and then posted a reply to a large group of people.
I used your message only to illustrate why I had spoken unclearly, not
to criticize you. So I used only enough to illustrate the point. I
was glad you had not raised this issue on the list, so I did not
either. I also did not mention your name. I thought I had done
enough to avoid giving you reason for offense.
Now that you have raised it on the list, I decline to respond. I
think that starting a discussion on yet another issue would be bad for
all the people who joined the list to get announcements from the GNU
project. It would also be bad for anyone who hopes to use GCC 1.36,
since I will not have time to work on it.
Besides, I have already published my arguments for why software should
be free. They are already available to anyone who wants to see them.
So it would be wasteful for me to post them. I refer interested
readers to the GNU Manifesto.
However, I caution the readers not to believe that my views are
accurately described by the messages that my opponents will post.
Some will portray my views accurately, but many will not.peirce@claris.com (Michael Peirce) (06/09/89)
In article <8906071718.AA00282@sugar-bombs.ai.mit.edu> rms@AI.MIT.EDU writes: >Someone sent me this message: > > You write: > > The difference between this and China is a matter of degree. The > > spirit is the same. > > I disagree. Your definitions of ``free'' and ``freedom'' intrigue me. > Here you are conducting a holy war against ``evil software hoarders''... > >This indicates a confusion of two separate issues which I suspect shows >I didn't distinguish them clearly enough. So I will try to do so now. > >For 6 years I have been working on a project to make software free, >but not by coercing anyone, only by writing free software. And, in >general, they have not tried to coerce me either. > >I believe software should be free. But my message quoted above is >about a different issue, where traditionally accepted rights are in >danger. > >Apple and others wish to take away people's freedom to write software, >whether free or not. And Apple does plan to use coercion to get their >way, if they can. They hope to get injunctions, and then others will >have the choice of obeying Apple or being imprisoned. I disagree. Apple does not want to "take away people's freedom to write software" in the general sense. They DO wish to prohibit people from writing software that infringes on their intellectual property rights. In this country we have many freedoms, but there are limits set on them. One limit is set forth in the constitution concerning intellectual property. Article 1, Section 8, states: "The Congress shall have power" ... "8. To promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries." To implement this the Congress has set up the Patent and Copyright system. This system DOES restrict my complete freedom to do what I please. I can not reproduce anothers work if it is protected by a Patent or Copyright. If Apple feels that its legal rights are being violated, then they should take the violators to court. The violators should fight this in court if they don't think they have done anything wrong. And the courts will decide who was right. I know I would want the same right to fight for my intellectual property rights if they were infringed. For example, if I were to spend X years inventing a new way to interact with computers (or refine oil for that matter) and someone came along and said "that's nice, I think I'll use it", I'd have two choices. I could say "fine, enjoy it", or take them to court to defend my patents or copyrights. Both choices are within my rights and both are moral. I don't (think I) have any objections to what the FSF is doing with it's Copyleft, etc. But I do object to them trying to coerce people and/or companies into giving up their rights to their intellectual property. I hope the FSF fails at this. -- michael peirce