jthomp@wintermute.Sun.COM (Jim Thompson ) (12/02/89)
(GNU.misc.discuss folks, theres a current war raging in alt.religion.computers about how evil RMS is, you've been cross posted.) In article <25770F75.3EA@rpi.edu> tale@cs.rpi.edu (Dave Lawrence) writes: >In <4639@sugar.hackercorp.com> peter@sugar.hackercorp.com (Peter da Silva): > > Richard Stallman has explicitly stated, here and in other places, > that selling software is evil. > >Prove it. Provide quotes, and don't twist them to suit your meaning. >I just went through the GNU Manifesto, yet again, and no where does he >say this. He does seem to imply it. Even I have to admit that much. (I'm still amazed at the lack of response to my posting of all those GNU articles two days ago. I *know* they got out. Hell, they all exist at apple, uunet, and lll-winken.) Stallman says: ---------- Why I Must Write GNU I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities, but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an institution where such things are done for me against my will. {and later} GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and they will compete in other areas, while benefitting mutually in this one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else, GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of selling operating systems. {and later: (In response to a few 'meta-questions'..)} "Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?" If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution. Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be punished if they restrict the use of these programs. "Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his creativity?" There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today are based on destruction. Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction. ---------- >The word "sell", or some superset, appears a few times. No where does >he say that the selling of software is evil. No where does the GPL >prohibit selling software. No, but his idea is that all software should be free, or at least supported by society. >Geez, Peter. I remember the last time you tried to claim this, >somewhere over in news.misc I think a few months ago. I was left with >the impression that you finally understood this after we discussed it >tersely in mail. Peter isn't wrong about Stallman beliving that all software should be free. Peter (correct me if wrong, Peter) is only upset that RMS (and others) want to remove the profit from restricting the use of software. >This isn't a total flame against Peter; I have a lot of respect for >his knowledge and experience. I am just amazed that he still >misrepresents the FSF like this. If you don't like GNU, well fine. >Convince others that way, too, if it is your wont. Don't do it by >lying about what is said though. Most programers that I've met that oppose GNU got into programming for the monetary rewards, rather than the pure love of programming. Certainly gaining sustinance from programing is ok. It is work, even the GNU project pays the people it employs. However, "Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of it is destructive..." For all the reasons stated above. RMS writes some more: ----- The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or, the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that creativity. ----- I have to agree. I don't plan on getting rich fom programming. Perhaps others do. I feel sorry for them. I certainly wouldn't plan on becomming rich by delivering mail, or becomming a fireman, or a policeman. There are ways of becomming wealthy in each of these occupations. Almost all of these methods are illegal. Why? Because they are bad for society. By the way, RMS never implied 'communism'. He does argue for a sort of software socialism. I agree. (Again.) Why should I have to duplicate your work? Why should I have to duplicate your work for my Great-American-Compiler? I certainly don't want to have to maintain code written by someone who is in it 'for the money'. I'd much rather use code written by someone who was in it for much the same reason as someone patents an invention of any sort. Copyright was invented in a time when copying the product involved (books) was prohibitivly expensive. Now its been turned into 'intellectual property rights', and its socially bankrupt. Does society benefit by the current scheme? Would society benefit more if we all shared our code? I belive so, therefore I support RMS and the FSF. If you're a software hoarder, admit it, and then repent. Consider what your actions are costing society. Consider the pain you endure to re-write what someone else may already have written (potentially as well, or better that you're about to write it.) Computers are tools, we should all be helping build tools. Not fighting each others efforts in order to make a pile of bread. Jim (All quotes from (emacs)/etc/GNU. Titled: The GNU MAnifesto.) (Which I posted here the other day.) Jim Thompson - Network Engineering - Sun Microsystems - jthomp@central.sun.com Member of the Fatalistic International Society for Hedonistic Youth (FISHY) "I woudn't recommend sex, drugs, or unix for everyone, but they work for me." - Me (paraphrasing Hunter S. Thompson)