Contributions to open source have come from both altruistic and commercial sources. In my opinion, both have been integral to the success of Linux and other large open source projects.
----- Original Message ----- From: "David Jackson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Saturday, January 15, 2005 3:52 PM Subject: Re: [brlug-general] Supporting Linux vs. Linux Zealotry > > 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 > > > _______________________________________________ > General mailing list > [email protected] > http://brlug.net/mailman/listinfo/general_brlug.net > >
