jimad@AI.MIT.EDU (Jim ADCOCK) (01/23/91)
In article <9101161825.AA09469@mole.ai.mit.edu| rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: |The purpose of the GNU project is not maximizing the use of GNU |software. It is promoting the freedom to share and change software as |much as we can. Having more users is better, all else being equal, |but not at the cost of forgetting what we are about. Perhaps Stallman needs to place a "clear statement" about what GNU is about in your licensing agreements, and in your statements about "freedom" so people will not be confused by the difference between your actual goals, and some of your more casual statements. |It seems that the GNU libraries will have enough use under the terms |now proposed to make them thrive. Even if that's only 25% as much as |they would otherwise be used, that is not a serious problem for the |GNU project. You contradict yourself in two paragraphs. You state that GNU is attempting to promote the freedom to share and change software -- but not maximize the use of that software. You state that the present licenses only allow perhaps 25% of the people to use GNU-restricted software, and do not consider that a serious problem. I disagree. I believe any software offering that deliberately prohibits the majority of programmers from using it is divisive, and against the good of the software community. Programmers -- please do not allow your software to be used for such divisive ends -- please do not allow your software to be distributed under the GNU licensing restrictions. |Pacifism is not part of the GNU philosophy, and software hoarding is |not a victimless crime. Being a wimp is not my idea of "high |mindedness". 'nuff said. This again, seems to be a statement that the ends justify the means. I disagree. People use the "ends justify the means" argument to try to justify whatever set of beliefs they believe in. The end result is that other human beings are injured. Gnu software itself engages in software hoarding -- justifying that behavior in terms of trying to force others to conform to their "political" ideals. I can tolerate such behavior if it isolated. But when Stallman refers to such behavior as "freedom" I must speak out and disagree. Attempts to coerce people do not represent freedom. "Freedom" is letting people decide for themselves. The Gnu software is in no way "free" but is as restrictive if not more restrictive that software available from other more traditional companies. Please do not be deceived by Stallman's attempts to label his actions "freedom." Please do not allow Stallman's licenses to be applied to your software -- doing so does not make your software more accessible to most software programmers, but rather prevents most software programmers from using your creations. [more than standard disclaimer]
kayvan@APPLE.COM (Kayvan Sylvan) (01/30/91)
Jim ADCOCK writes: > In article <9101161825.AA09469@mole.ai.mit.edu| rms@AI.MIT.EDU (Richard Stallman) writes: > > [... too much stuff ...] > > Programmers -- please do not allow your software to be used for such > divisive ends -- please do not allow your software to be distributed > under the GNU licensing restrictions. > > [... And still more stuff ...] > > Please do not be deceived by Stallman's attempts to label his > actions "freedom." Please do not allow Stallman's licenses to be > applied to your software -- doing so does not make your software > more accessible to most software programmers, but rather prevents > most software programmers from using your creations. My apologies to the group for posting this to help-g++ rather than gnu.misc.discuss, but I couldn't help but reply to Jim's post. Jim's arguments do not really apply. The FSF licenses only restrict people's ability to restrict your access to the sources of the software you are using. You are free to do with the software what you like, as long as you don't restrict other people's freedom. Promoting freedom of software also means that you can't use free software inside your proprietary software. It is obvious that Jim from Microsoft is very invested (probably literally as well as figuratively) in the idea of restricting people's use of software for profit. He balks at the idea of not being able to use a piece of free software in a way that restricts his end-user's freedom. Too bad. To try to present that as a plea for freedom is true hypocrisy. An example that illustrates: I recently found a file system bug in the operating system I am using. Having found the cause (a buggy routine in a system library), I was able to effect a fix by replacing the buggy routine with one that worked from the net. *However*, I couldn't fix the binaries easily (because I didn't have the sources). I actually *did* end up patching the binaries (by disassembling them and findind out what to change), but it wasn't my idea of a fun time. The fact is that the software vendor had me at their mercy even though I was probably far more capable of fixing my problem in a timely fashion than they themselves were... They had, through their licensing, restricted my freedom to read and change the source. FSF software, on the other hand, is infinitely superior simply because you have the source. Making sources available to hundreds of bright intelligent software people all over the net to use/modify and send in patches insures that in a very short time you have sources that are ported to hundreds of different machines and that you have software that is *very high quality*. Enough said, ---Kayvan | Kayvan Sylvan Unix/C, GNU tools 879 Lewiston Drive 408-978-1407 | | Sylvan Associates GUIs, Databases San Jose, CA 95136 Think Globally | | Networking, X apple!satyr!kayvan Act Locally | | === Currently looking for contracts === Hire me now! Avoid the rush! === |
tiemann@eng.sun.com (Michael Tiemann) (02/14/91)
I can't stand reading Jim's disinformation any longer. I have let
about 5 of his random flames fly, and this one has put me over the
top. If you regularly disregard Jim's postings, you might as well
disregard this one.
Again, I disagree. The FSF licenses prevent the vast majority of
programmers from using any libraries with such licensing restrictions.
The reason being that most programmers work for companies distributing
software that cannot be profitably supported in source form. When
"for profit" companies see the opportunity to provide software in
source form, at a reasonable support cost, then they so provide the
software. A case in point being reusable object-oriented libraries
written in C++. The consensus -- in the industry -- seems to be that
such libraries need to be distributed in source form in order for
them to be truly useful to programmers. Surprise! -- industry supplies
such software in source form, without unduly restrictive licenses.
This paragraph contains 3 anti-facts. First, the FSF licenses in not
way restrict programmers from *using* FSF libraries. I have supported
many a proprietary programming effort in my time, and they all used
the FSF libraries for prototyping. Some of them even *learned*
something about coding style. Second, most companies have no idea how
profitable supporting source code can be; they just don't even try.
I'm not saying that my software support company (Cygnus) is making
Milken or Helmsley look poor, but we do alright. I'm sure that most
software companies can make money in all sorts of different ways. Out
of laziness, they choose to follow Microsoft's and IBM's model of
software hoarding. Finally, I looked at the licensing terms of
`Classix', a C++ class library. Yes, they do distribute their sources
because they have to so that it works with conventional C++ compilers.
But, they have the most restrictive licensing terms I have seen for a
while. You cannot use, modify or distribute them in 98% of the ways I
consider useful.
If for-profit industry can provide source-form reusable object-oriented
software libraries at hardly more than the "distribution" costs of
"Free" software, and can do so without unduly restrictive licensing agreements,
then, if people were to mistakenly distribute their work under Stallman's
restrictive licenses, society loses. We'd all be better off if the authors
of such software distributed ["sold"] the software themselves.
Garbage, since I have yet to see less restrictive instead of more
restrictive licenses. Also, I don't buy the argument even if true.
Laws which enforce safety are a restriction on society. Does society
lose by being safer, or by having the freedom to endanger itself?
Should I be able to walk to my local gun shop and buy a tactical
nuclear warhead or a binary nerve gas system? Maybe I should...maybe
it would benefit society to keep the whining down in certain parts of
Washington. Is this the kind of freedom-without-restrictions that I
should enjoy? No: I prefer to compete within the restrictions of our
current laws.
The rest of his posting is hard to argue with, only because by now it
is based on such flakey assumptions that there is no coherent point
which can be argued. Suffice it to say that Jim's idea of what
constitutes "overly restrictive" and what constitutes "useful" are
diametrically opposed to what I have found. When I fire up a spread
sheet and it doesn't do what I want, without source, I'm screwed.
Since starting a company, and using software commercially, the
importance I place on source availability has *increased*, as has my
contempt for people who continue to argue about the unreasonableness
of the FSF licenses. It's not the licenses that slow us down, it's
hiring people, paying taxes, bidding too agressively, disk errors,
unexpected market events, etc. In other words, by looking at our
business, you can't tell that we're not just another software company,
except that our customers have no problems getting source from us.
Michael