meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) (12/22/89)
Kyle Jones says: |Miles O'Neal writes about the GPL: |Forget it. Even quality software needs support. Ask the authors of C |news. Ask the authors of your favorite piece of software. You cannot |possibly anticipate everything that the users will want, even if your |code is completely bug free. And when you start adding things that the |users want, you will inevitably introduce bugs. There will be a market |for software maintenance, believe it. Good software, done properly, can get by with VERY little support. At least, some applications can. I know. I've done some, and I've used some. Also, "support" is not major enhancements. | | > 2) A lot of other people, such as 103% of all the MIS-heads in the world, | > are going to lump it in with all that "public domain bulletin board stuff"- | > useless garbage and probably full of viruses, or at least nasty bugs (their | > perceptions, not mine). They would summarily have someone on their staff | > shot who even LET the stuff in the door. | |And the guarantees you get with commercial software are any better? No |warranty, no guarantee that the software will do anything at all or let |alone be fit for the advertised purpose, nothing. Have you never DEALT with these people? They make up a phenomenal percentage of the market. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE SUPPORT IS ANY GOOD. It is that the support says "IBM" or "DEC" on it. |By the way, if you're using this same virus-ridden, buggy free software |that your MIS customers loathe to develop your product, how can you |guarantee that the software you deliver doesn't suffer from the same |maladies? If they knew you were using such software in your operations, |would they still want to buy your product? Reread it, please. I said that's how THEY (the MIS-heads) would perceive anything that came in their door without a PO for thousands of dollars. Anything that can be gotten for free, they consider worthless, or worse. | > This does NOT appear to give me a good chance at making any decent living | > (ie, lower middle class income or above) off the software. | |Software isn't the only thing that a computer professional is capable of |producing! For a given task, the right hardware must be chosen, and |installed. The right software must be chosen and installed. Users must |be educated as to how to use the software. Software must be maintained. |Software must be maintained. Software must be maintained. (The See above. See above. See above. |repetition is intentional.) Hardware must be monitored and maintained. |As needs change, the above cycle repeats. Fine. YOU go be a systems integrator, and a trainer, and an installer, etc, etc, etc. I want to design, write, and document software. And I want to make a good living at it. Now, what is the difference between making money off the software, vs making the money off of these other things? I contend there is NO moral difference, and that (morality) is the only argument I have seen for this whole issue (other than 1 attempt to tie things to renewable resources). |What I want to know is why you would want more of a free lunch. You can |get GNU software for the cost of making a copy, and yet you don't seem |to want to give anything back. The beauty of sharing is that if |everyone shares, EVERYONE gets more than they give. If I write a neat |program and post it to the net, and N others do the same, I get N neat |programs despite the fact I only wrote one. And so does everyone else. I don't even want the free lunch. I don't necessarily want/plan/need to use the GNU software. You came in late, I believe. 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. |And this is a Bad Thing? To me, a bad thing is taking, and taking, and |taking without giving anything in return. So the GPL forces your hand a |little... ah well, there are alternatives to using FSF code. If I meet their need, then I gave them something. |In my mind, the whole point of the FSF is to encourage software sharing, |The idea to make software freely distributible so that more people can |receive the benefits of the software itself, rather than money made from |the sale of the software. Software is the end, not the means. A very |different point of view than that of a software vendor. 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. I asked someone via email for RMS's net address, but have no answer yet. If someone would provide it, I'll ask him some of the questions I've been asking here. -Miles
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
pcg@aber-cs.UUCP (Piercarlo Grandi) (12/23/89)
In article <8322@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes:
[ ... about MIS-heads that only trust expensive brand name sw ... ]
Have you never DEALT with these people? They make up a phenomenal
percentage of the market. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE WHETHER THE SUPPORT IS
ANY GOOD. It is that the support says "IBM" or "DEC" on it.
Ok. So there are a lot of suckers out there. Surely IBM and DEC are not the
only ones that can squeeze them :-(. On the other hand, the FSF, as I
understand it, has a strong ethical attitude; doing in the suckers is not
among their goals, but rather educating the public is. It may well be
different for you.
Reread it, please. I said that's how THEY (the MIS-heads) would perceive
anything that came in their door without a PO for thousands of dollars.
Anything that can be gotten for free, they consider worthless, or worse.
Well, the MIS-heads surely could be sold GNU Emacs or GNU C for a lot of
bucks. You could make a killing. They will never even read the license, and
so they will never discover that they need not have paid for it, because
being suckers they do not read the licenses of proprietary software either.
I know! I worried a few of them by pointing out the reverse warranties in
most commercial sw, and that they had paid good money for tapes and floppies.
Fine. YOU go be a systems integrator, and a trainer, and an installer,
etc, etc, etc. I want to design, write, and document software. And I want
to make a good living at it.
As RMS writes, you may want to make a good living making faces at people in
the street, but there is no legislation that compels people to give you
money for it. Nobody has a "right" to make a good living at any odd job they
might enjoy. A lot of musicians and actors starve. Legislation that
recognizes property rights does so, at least in principle, because they are
expected to be beneficial to the functioning of the nation, not because
anybody has a right to som other people's money.
If you want to make a good living by doing something that you don't care
about being antisocial, like possibly impairing the growth of the nation by
hoarding software, in order to squeeze money out of gullible MIS-heads,
well, it's your choice.
The FSF choice is to make a case that certain types of property rights on
certain types of intellectual property do not benefit the nation, and they
want to demonstrate that the alternative is better.
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.
I think this is a misconception. I understand that the reason behind the FSF
policies is that they reckon that the public stands more to gain from
unrestricted sharing of software technology than by proprietary hoarding of
it. Under this view, there is no reason not to allow selling software, as
long as its further circulation is not restricted.
The FSF idea that granting the right to restrict software circulation is not
desirable is motivated by the ethical idea that what benefits the nation is
good, and that the nation's best interest is to have as unrestricted a
sharing of software as possible.
Any discussion of the FSF policies is about these three points, in order
of increasing generality:
1) that the GPL as it stands is less effective in promoting the aim
of unrestricted software circulation than if it were changed in some
particular way.
2) that unrestricted software circulation benefits the nation more
than granting restrictive rights to software.
3) that it is a worthy aim to benefit the nation by opportune
legislative policies or demonstrations of their desirability.
As I understand *him*, RMS has pretty good arguments about point 3), i.e. a
long tradition of political thought that starts with the Constitution of the
US; has intriguing arguments for point 2), based on the particular nature of
software w.r.t. to other types of intellectual works. It also seems that
point 3) is central to RMS' life, and he believes passionately in point 2),
so probably any argument to the contrary should be very strong to change his
mind.
As to point 1) he seems less sure; I understand that RMS *reckons* that the
current GPL is better than certain alternatives as to promoting point 2),
but stands ready to be persuaded otherwise. If anybody has persuasive
arguments that changing the GPL in some way, such as lifting the condition
about incorporation of FSF technology in sw distributed to third parties,
may encourage more sharing of software, I am sure RMS stands ready to do it.
As I understand *you*, you are not very concerned about 3). You are more
concerned about yourself. Fine. Try to persuade RMS that he should share
your concern. :-/
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.
I beg to differ; he likes to *encourage* sharing. This is done in a very
mild and gentle manner, as is apparently RMS' character overall: you are
permitted to *incorporate* nontrivial FSF technology in your programs that
you make available to others, if you don't restrict their further
circulation. It is entirely voluntary. If you share your work, you are
rewarded by being able to incorporate FSF technology in it. This may be
enough incentive to encourage more people than otherwise would to share their
programs; it may be not, and if this is persuasively argued, the FSF should
be ready to change the license.
Note that nobody forces you to incorporate FSF technology in programs you
make available to third parties, and you can make *use* of FSF technology,
or even incorporate it in programs that you keep to yourself, without any
condition.
The two latter points are consistent with a gentle sense of ethics under
which that you do by yourself are your business alone, and that which you do
with tools is yours alone. You are only asked to share your work if a
nontrivial part of it has been shared with you by somebody else.
--
Piercarlo "Peter" Grandi | ARPA: pcg%cs.aber.ac.uk@nsfnet-relay.ac.uk
Dept of CS, UCW Aberystwyth | UUCP: ...!mcvax!ukc!aber-cs!pcg
Penglais, Aberystwyth SY23 3BZ, UK | INET: pcg@cs.aber.ac.uktower@AI.MIT.EDU (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) (12/23/89)
Date: 21 Dec 89 23:34:54 GMT From: swrinde!emory!stiatl!meo@cs.utexas.edu (Miles O'Neal) ... 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. ... I would characterize this belief of Richard Stallman's as: Restricting the free re-distribition of software, including source code, is wrong. The phrase 'seeling software' is too inexact and can be taken many ways. 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. ... One of the goals of the GNU Project is to allow ethical people to have all the freely re-distributable software they need. Another is to show by example, that freely re-distributable software is superior. The Project isn't forcing you to do anything except to choose whether to use GNU software, or some other software. Do you deny the people involved with GNU the right to do what they wish within the law? thanx -len
jb3o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Jon Allen Boone) (12/23/89)
if you read the gnu boards other than discuss, you will occasionally see it posted there....along with some clarification of his on some point or another..... it is.... (apparently) rms@AI.MIT.EDU fingering this address returns that richard m. stallman does indeed own this account (or at least, he reads the mail..:-) iain the flippant | You'll PAY To Know What You REALLY Think | jb3o@andrew.cmu.edu(INTERNET) | Your MIND Left Intentionally Blank | R746JB3O@cmccvb(BITNET) | SCIENCE DOES NOT REMOVE THE TERROR OF THE GODS| disclaimer: anything I say may be wrong - I don't represent anyone but me
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
kevin@mips.COM (Kevin Kuhn) (12/28/89)
Sorry if this has already been gone over here, maybe somebody could send
me email if this is out of place.
This big ruckus with the aids software that was sent all over the country
recently was apparently done by somebody with lots of cash. On the news
they told the story, and ended with the warning, "So stay away from all
free software".
It just seems that the primary motive behind this is descrediting free
software, and the FSF is the largest group in this field. Also a lot
of companies have a vested interest in promoting the "danger" of public
domain type stuff.
Any comments (or am I banished to alt.conspiracy where such stuff should
be, but an ongoing talk.bizarre.snuggles.bear has staged a coup and taken
over the group :-))
--
=<standard.disclaimer>==========================================================
Kevin Kuhn kevin@mips.com
MIPS Computer Systems {ames,decwrl,prls,pyramid}!mips!kevinbob@MorningStar.Com (Bob Sutterfield) (12/29/89)
In article <33980@mips.mips.COM> kevin@mips.COM (Kevin Kuhn) writes:
This big ruckus with the aids software that was sent all over the
country recently was apparently done by somebody with lots of cash.
On the news they told the story, and ended with the warning, "So
stay away from all free software".
Big deal. During the media hysteria after the Internet Worm last
year, I heard the "expert opinion" (not just from Saturday Night Live)
that wise, careful people would never let their computer connect with
another computer. The internetworking community seems to have
successfully ignored that advice, too.
People who don't want to think will always find someone else to do it
for them - and often for a tidy compensation.arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu (Kenneth Arromdee) (01/02/90)
In article <33980@mips.mips.COM> kevin@mips.COM (Kevin Kuhn) writes: >This big ruckus with the aids software that was sent all over the country >recently was apparently done by somebody with lots of cash. On the news >they told the story, and ended with the warning, "So stay away from all >free software". >It just seems that the primary motive behind this is descrediting free >software... Another conspiracy theory, though, is the opposite: by having a "license" which threatens destruction of your other programs if you violate it, and which otherwise contains many restrictive provisions common to typical software "licenses" and "warrantees" which disclaim everything, the Aids trojan is really an attempt to discredit _non_-free software by being an example of what is wrong with all those restrictive shrinkwrap licensing agreements... -- "Workers of the world, we're sorry!" --Soviet protestor's slogan Kenneth Arromdee (UUCP: ....!jhunix!arromdee; BITNET: arromdee@jhuvm; INTERNET: arromdee@crabcake.cs.jhu.edu)