Andrew (et. al.),
I find your entire argument to be wrong; not just wrong as in
incorrect, but wrong as in morally, and ethically. Does this make me an
idealist? Certainly, but I am in good company. Our founding fathers
were idealists.
Does that make me wrong, simply because I am an idealist? I think not.
If there wasn't GNU, there wouldn't be a Linux. That's why Stallman
has always been adamant to call it GNU/Linux, instead of just Linux.
Linux implies that it's the whole nine yards, when, just as you
accurately pointed out, it's just a kernel. Calling it "just Linux"
conveniently hides the deeper truth.
Linux itself is compiled with GNU compilers, edited with GNU editors,
debugged with GNU debuggers. In fact, it is safe to say that there is
not a single thing in it that isn't heavily reliant on the large mass of
code that was created by the GNU project. It owes, completely, it's
success to the GNU project. This is not a matter of debate, this is
just quiet, simple, fact.
GNU is free software, as in speech, and beer. The massive library of
software that has been put out by the GNU project (all of it fundamental
essentials to have a working Operating System), as well as the
successive landslide of software that has been wrapped in the GNU Public
License, is all free software. Free as in speech, and as in beer.
Thousands of man hours, unpaid, went into the creation of this
foundation. The very foundation that others have relied on. Sure, some
of them were commercial operations; as you pointed out, the commercial
distributions pay programmers to continue development in specific
directions. Some large information technology firms pay programmers to
continue development in specific directions. They needed to solve
problems for their clients. We all benefit from their work, but not any
more than we benefit from the work that went into Linux that was unpaid.
They all did it because, as a collective effort, it increased the
value and potential of the whole. Because, beyond the immediate
financial gains, there was a long-term goal that had meaning. That goal
was far more complex than I have in the space of this e-mail, but it had
a lot to do with creating a new kind of market for the computing
industry that valued the individual programmer, who could solve tasks
for individual companies who had a need, and at the same time valued
society, helping it as a whole to move forward another notch.
You declare that the ideals behind free software are "BS" (your
words), but yet, you use Linux. You are in a Linux user's group, and
you probably read these e-mails using Linux. Yet, somehow, you believe
that if all of this were a commercial enterprise, that you would be able
to get a high-paying job developing code for it, and so that is how it
should be.
Let me see if I have this right; if we ridicule, belittle and finally
abandon the principles and beliefs of all the thousands of people that
have spent thousands of man hours to develop the very thing that you
want to make a living off of, then that makes it morally and ethically
convenient to turn GNU/Linux into something that we can package, sell,
and restrict the ultimate use of by completely ignoring the beliefs and
desire of the people who made it possible for us to do so? All for the
sole purpose of increasing your own personal bank account? Is that what
I am hearing?
To me, that notion is morally, ethically, and philosophically wrong.
It is morally and ethically bankrupt to take the work of thousands of
people, who did that work so that everyone would benefit, and turn it
into the same kind of product that Windows is; restricted use, closed
source, with no care for the welfare of society as a whole, or even the
collective computing community. This does not even begin to broach the
real problem, which is the massively inflated price of software to begin
with, that is all too common when people who "just want to make a
living" decide that they could make a much better living, and do much
less work, if they keep all the information and technology to themselves.
I do not oppose the commercialization of Linux; I have always
supported companies like RedHat, Mandrake, or Xandros who have went to
great efforts to make a distribution of Linux that would benefit
commercial clients. And they have always made their source code
available to the rest of us, so that we could benefit from their work,
and make changes as we needed to, to suit our needs. In the few cases
that a particular element could not be made open source, they include
the source code for everything but the tiny offensive proprietary bit,
which is a binary. Fair enough, at least they are trying.
But, by the same token, I very strongly oppose proprietary elements
becoming the rule of thumb in a Linux environment. It should be
accepted only in rare cases, and a free alternative should always be
available (even if it lacks the full functionality of the prorpietary
version, the "nv" driver versus the "nvidia" driver being a perfect
example).
The battlecry for greedy capitalists has always been; "you can't
make money with open source". What they , and what you, Andrew, are
saying is that you feel the only way to make money with programming (or
software) is if you control exclusive rights to what is done, both
legally and financially, with a piece of software that you right, and
that you, and only you should benefit financially from anything that is
done with that software.
Just like them, maybe you believe that if you write a piece of
software, and release the source code, that others will be able to just
take your code and slap their name on it. I am certain that this has
happened in the past; but almost invariably, when I see a package that
contains a lot of code from the package before it, the new package has
made enhancements, fixes, or added functionality to their "code of
origin". This is what makes source code so useful; everything you
make, and give to the public, will be enhanced, and suddenly, you can
benefit from thousands of talented and energetic minds, rather than just
your own. It leverages your software, and makes it a thousand times
more valuable than it was before; but, the problem is, you'll say, that
you can't make any more money from it.
This is why Carmack is a perfect example of why you should release
source code. I read through the entire blog that you quoted, and his
basic philosophy was (and is); develop a piece of technology that is
better than anything anyone else has done. License this technology to
people who want it right now; give them the first crack at this
technology. Once they have some lead time, release the source code to
the public, and make it open source.
I couldn't possibly have a problem with this; everyone benefits.
Carmack benefits from his work. The license holders benefit from a
brief window of exclusive use. And society as a whole benefits when the
source code becomes GPL'ed. Carmack works greed against itself; if you
are so greedy that you want the right to use a technology that no-one
else can use yet, then you can pay a lot of money for that priviledge.
But once that tiny window of exclusive use is over, Carmack sticks to
his principles...his ideals...and releases the source code to the public.
And he doesn't seem to be doing too bad, for a "free software idealist".
All of this begs the question; how greedy are you, Andrew? How much
money do you want to steal from the public? I can't find a better word
for it; "it" being the act of performing an act of work, but continually
charging for that work over and over again, without having to do any new
work. I can understand a small margin, a minor window in which you
expect to make money from people who are in dire need of your product,
and so are willing to pay. But those people will definitely pay enough
to have made the effort worth it. After that, it's all gravy. How much
gravy do you expect?
But, let's wrap up, with a summary reiteration; you complain that,
in Baton Rouge, not noted for it's hugh tech sector, that the few open
source jobs that you could find paid so low that you couldn't support
your family. Although, I sincerely doubt the veracity of this statement
(simply because I don't believe that there are that many open source
jobs in Baton Rouge to be had, at all, but mostly because I don't
believe anyone would try to pay a real programmer $8 an hour). I would
love to know what the company is, that wanted to pay you this, and if
indeed they were going to pay you for programming, and not data entry or
some other labor-intensive clerical job.
However, because of this complaint, you blame the open source
initiative (in spite of the fact that one of the nation's wealthiest
programmers is making a bundle, and still supports open source). You
claim that Linux has to adopt proprietary standards, or they won't ever
be financial viable (in this case, viable enough to pay you for whatever
you feel that you are worth). You use this outlandish claim of "$8 an
hour" as proof that open source companies can't make money, yet at the
same time, you tell the tale of how Redhat, IBM, Suse, and other distro
companies are paying their employees to develop open source products.
Well, where the hell is their money coming from then? Companies
operate from profits, and if open source is not profitable, without
adopting proprietary standards, why is Redhat even in business?
I'll leave the answer to that question up to you.
David Jackson
