kearns@read.columbia.edu (Steve Kearns) (07/28/89)
I have a proposal: The FSF should sell (for MONEY) the right to use their code in a proprietary product. Yes, I know that selling software is against the FSF Manifesto. People who insist on making proprietary software will do so whether or not GNU sells their source code. By selling the use of their code GNU can apply the money to their "cause". Proprietary software makers would be furthering the cause of non-proprietary software, and the excellent gnu tools would have much wider use. But, you may say, the GNU software is bait to try to entice programmers to contribute to the project. Making it easier to make proprietary software would hurt GNU. I think that there are basically 3 groups of programmers: (1) those that believe in GNU (2) those that may go either way (3) those who insist on making proprietary software. (I am in (3), by the way.) By selling software, GNU may make it less likely that the people in group 2 join the movement. In my opinion, this group is vanishingly small. In summary, by selling the rights to use their code in a proprietary product, GNU would only GAIN: "advertising", money, and respect. The world would be a much nicer place for those of us in group (3), because we could use the excellent GNU tools for a fair price. Also, netnews traffic would be much reduced (no more GNU flames), saving millions of dollars each year :-}. -steve (kearns@cs.columbia.edu)
nate@hobbes.intel.com (Nate Hess) (07/29/89)
In article <6415@columbia.edu>, kearns@read (Steve Kearns) writes: >I have a proposal: > >The FSF should sell (for MONEY) the right to use their code in >a proprietary product. Oh dear. Here we go... I know the FSF wouldn't go for your proposal. >Yes, I know that selling software is against the FSF Manifesto. That's one reason they wouldn't. >People who insist on making proprietary software will do so whether or >not GNU sells their source code. This is true, but irrelevant. >By selling the use of their code GNU can apply the money to their >"cause". If the FSF did sell their code to "apply the money to their cause," there wouldn't be a cause left. > >But, you may say, the GNU software is bait to try to entice programmers >to contribute to the project. Making it easier to make proprietary >software would hurt GNU. GNU software is just that -- GNU software; ie., it's meant to be shared, read, learned from, modified, all without fear of some company's lawyers suing you for doing so. Above all, it happens to be useful, allowing users and programmers, alike, to be more productive. >I think that there are basically 3 groups of programmers: (1) those >that believe in GNU (2) those that may go either way (3) those who >insist on making proprietary software. (I am in (3), by the way.) You're probably missing a couple groups that contain a large number of programmers: (4) those that would prefer to always write and create copylefted code, but find themselves working for companies where that's not what happens with the code they write; (5) those who have never heard of GNU or the GPL. >In summary, by selling the rights to use their code in a proprietary >product, GNU would only GAIN: "advertising", money, and respect. >The world would be a much nicer place for those of us in group (3), >because we could use the excellent GNU tools for a fair price. Actually, I know *I* would lose a lot of respect for the FSF if they were to do as you suggest; I think many others would, too. I also know that they will never do it. By your last sentence, are you saying that you don't think GNU software is available at a fair price, now? --woodstock -- "What I like is when you're looking and thinking and looking and thinking...and suddenly you wake up." - Hobbes woodstock@hobbes.intel.com ...!{decwrl|hplabs!oliveb}!intelca!mipos3!nate
kearns@read.columbia.edu (Steve Kearns) (07/31/89)
> >By your last sentence, are you saying that you don't think GNU software >is available at a fair price, now? > > >--woodstock > According to the copyleft, one can use gcc and g++ to develop proprietary products only if one does not use the libraries. The libg++ library is good, but proprietary developers must rewrite them instead of building on them. -steve (kearns@cs.columbia.edu)
bob@tinman.cis.ohio-state.edu (Bob Sutterfield) (08/02/89)
In article <6415@columbia.edu> kearns@read.columbia.edu (Steve Kearns) writes:
The FSF should sell (for MONEY) the right to use their code in a
proprietary product.
That would be the moral equivalent of a preacher taking a second job
in a whorehouse.