gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) (12/22/89)
In article <8322@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: > This whole discussion began around Richard Stallman's (apparent) > belief that selling software is immoral, not around whether I should > use GNU or what I should get from/give to GNU/anyone else. Well, if I may summarize, this 'discussion' has had lots of subparts. 1. RMS is out to make it illegal to sell software, therefore we must oppose him at every turn or the world will end. This argument falls apart if you use an analogy to vegetarians. None of its proponents has volunteered to ask RMS if he's really out to destroy the world as we know it. Nothing in the manifesto says anything other than "Here's what we think the world should be, and here's how we are going help it become that way by writing software and making it 'free'." 2. The Gnu Public License (GPL) is a virus designed to trick innocent people into giving their code away. Only a few GNU utilities could bind a user this way. And similar commercial products have licenses with conditions also. You must ALWAYS check before you go sell someone's compiled code or library. I'm not sure which idiots could possibly be tricked. 3. FSF isn't the best way to give your code away, because everyone cannot use the resulting code. Yes, if you want to not give out your source, for whatever reason, FSF will not save you from re-inventing the wheel. However, there is no reason why FSF should give their hard work away with no restrictions. I'm happy that they give it away at all. On the other hand, I still place some code into the public domain. This is because it is sufficiently trivial that I do not care if someone tries to sell it. 4. The FSF will never amount to anything, because nobody wants to write general interest free software. I suppose Peter will be proven wrong when the GNU Spreadsheet is released. To stave off the mounds of flames I see coming, this is just my view of the discussions so far, and my comments. Your mileage will vary. Finally one last comment on the referenced article: >Coupled with other remarks I have seen of Richard Stallman's, it seems >that the idea is to FORCE software sharing, by one means or another. Very >different thing. It's 100% ok for RMS to FORCE people to share RMS' code. It's his. He wrote it. You don't have to agree, or use it. I wonder how sales of 3rd part Unix C and C++ compilers have been doing since gcc and G++ came out? I hope the FSF have convinced a lot of people that 'free' software can be good for them. ------ Greg Lindahl
davidsen@crdos1.crd.ge.COM (Wm E Davidsen Jr) (12/27/89)
In article <1989Dec22.052935.5136@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU> gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl) writes: | In article <8322@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes: | | > This whole discussion began around Richard Stallman's (apparent) | > belief that selling software is immoral, not around whether I should | > use GNU or what I should get from/give to GNU/anyone else. To start with, you are misrepresenting RMS' beliefs, which makes it easier to disagree. He is *not* against selling software. He does not prohibit it. You (yes you) can sell GNU software for any price you want. The catch is (a) you must provide or make available the source, and (b) you can't prohibit further redistribution. | Well, if I may summarize, this 'discussion' has had lots of subparts. | | 1. RMS is out to make it illegal to sell software, therefore we must | oppose him at every turn or the world will end. See above. Now I don't believe in either the policy or the methods, nor am I a personal friend of his. Somewhat the opposite, in fact, based on some rather personal remarks he made during a debate I had with him at a SF convention (some Boskone back in the Copley, if you care). I would, however, suggest that you understand his position to avoid wasting effort fighting strawmen. -- bill davidsen (davidsen@crdos1.crd.GE.COM -or- uunet!crdgw1!crdos1!davidsen) "The world is filled with fools. They blindly follow their so-called 'reason' in the face of the church and common sense. Any fool can see that the world is flat!" - anon