The real challenge is in getting them to see profit in working withThis is precisely what Eric does. Companies want "protect" intellectual property they have invested a significant amount of time and money into developing. Hence the sudden wide variety of licenses. As we all know the licenses that are not truly free will get ignored by the community and nothing will happen. Eric has assidiously tried to convince companies that open is better by trying to get them to adapt one of the recognized open licenses. Their legal counsel sometimes disagrees and takes their own stab at a license.
the community while discouraging parasitism on their part. I don't
see you doing this.
This is a "straw man" argument. Working with a business is not akin to working with a serial killer. If a company wants to release something under the Bobzilla Public License they are certainly free to do so. Whether or not that is the wisest decision for the software is another thing entirely.
Although the magnitude is different, what you are doing is analagous
to making deals with a serial killer where you get something in return
for providing him with victims. I don't see this as a very honorable
way of doing business, even if what you get back ultimately benefits
society as a whole. The ends do not justify the means.
You can live in the small community of free software and never leave it. Certainly no one has forced Richard to compromise his ideals or the ideals of many of the people involved with the FSF. Freeing software takes time and businesses have to make certain changes culturally in order for this to happen. They can't simply can't release their "crown jewels" without some assurance that it won't put them out of business. Businesses have mundane concerns such as payroll, healthcare, facilities and equipment to maintain. They cannot by nature move as quickly a single developer or a development team since a misstep means that you don't meet payroll with all the effects that has (mortgages are missed, people don't eat etc).
I agree with Richard: I would rather live in a community of ideals,
even if it were a lot smaller and less functional (in a compatibility-
with-the-outside-world sense). Encroaching decadence will never be a
trait of _my_ community, no matter how enticing the price/performance
ratio looks. I neither need nor want to deal with "reality" if it
means I have to engage in this sort of behavior.
I have watched this debate on this list for some time and really the problem is that Eric and Richard will never agree because their world views are different. Richards is a deontological world view. He believes that software should be free and not freeing is a bad thing. Deontological views believe in a absolute systems of morals and ideals. Eric has a consequentialist world view, which mean actions (such as software licensing) are only evil in their effects (ie a Windows monopoly on the desktop.)
This deontological/consequentialist split runs through a number of issues
(abortion, capitol punishment, war name an issue and its split this way.)
Richard recognizes their split over "issues of principals." The problem
is that to successfully run a revolution you need both types of people
- those with unyieldng ideals and those who try to carry the ideals to
world and make them work as broadly as possible. It also seems inevitable
that there is conflict between these two. Dealing with businesses
building systems for them using free software I tend to be a consequentialist.
That said I would rather live in a world where all software was free, so
I fight for it every day by changing the minds of merchants and businesses
I deal with.
--
Brian DeSpain ******************************************************** http://www.bravenewworlds.com Technical Consultants Business Development Electronic Commerce Toll-Free: 800.631.2527 Fax Number: 626.584.9364 ********************************************************
