At 08:34 PM 4/27/2000, Doug Alcorn wrote:
>I too have read the GPL and GPL Manifesto. I do so often. For me
>Free Software is an ethical decision.
GPLed software is not "free." In fact, it is heavily encumbered by
a complex and restrictive license. Stallman's references to it as
"free" are doublespeak.
>Further, I have actually seen
>and heard RMS talk in person about the GPL and the history of FSF. He
>is point is that the GPL is the _only_ ethical way to write software.
>He has no intentions of hurting programmer wages. He has never said,
>"I want all programmers to work for free or at poverty level graduate
>student rates."
Alas, this is not so. Stallman wrote, in his own "GNU Manifesto,"
For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers
worked at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than
they could have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary
rewards: fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun,
a reward in itself.
Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same interesting
work for a lot of money.
What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other than
riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they will
come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly in
competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly if
the high-paying ones are banned.
In short, an EXPLICIT purpose of the GPL is to destroy all programming
jobs which pay better than what is earned by a starving graduate student.
Stallman advocates banning commercial software and commercial software
companies. He has also advocated taxing all computer users to support
his organization (the FSF) and its attempts to drive software companies
out of business by methodically destroying all markets for commercial
software, one by one.
>In fact, he himself charges very high rates for his time.
One of many good examples of Stallman's hypocrisy.
>While this list is obviously not the right forum for this discussion,
>I do think it is good that we as programmers of free software think
>about why we do what we do. I do it because I believe in sharing. In
>fact, I punish my 2 year old when he doesn't share. How can I do that
>and then prohibit other's to share software?
In this case you should oppose the GPL, because it does not share
software freely. Anyone can use GPLed software for the purpose that
benefits him or her the most, EXCEPT a commercial developer. Why?
Because, by undermining their markets and at the same time refusing
to share code with them, Stallman hopes to deprive them of a livelihood.
This is the purpose of the GPL: to turn open source from a public
benefit into a weapon against a particular group against which
Stallman bears an abiding grudge -- commercial programmers.
>My time, however, is a precious resource (really the only one I have).
>I spend it wisely. Sometimes I choose to give it to my wife or my
>son. Sometimes I choose to give it to my community. I believe I am
>really investing time in those situations. I expect the long term
>benifits to outway any immediate gains I might be sacrificing.
>Sometimes I have immediate needs that I must meet. In those
>situations, I sell my time to meet those immediate needs.
>
>I don't see any discrepancy between the idea of promoting sharing and
>the valuation of my time. I don't think many people on this list
>would.
It sounds as if we agree on these points. However, the GPL does not
promote sharing; in fact, it explicitly prevents sharing. If you
believe that code should be shared, you should advocate the use of
a true open source license such as the BSD or MIT X license. But not
the GPL, whose purposes are destructive rather than constructive.
--Brett Glass
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
