Ian Hickson wrote:
> Since you clearly understand the issues, I would recommend being more
> careful when making statements like "RMS [sees] selling software as a
> sin", which is not true at all (he encourages it), and "[GPL] software
> itself must be 100% cost free", which again is patently untrue.
> We have enough trouble with people misunderstanding the concept of free
> software without untruths being spread by reliable sources as well! :-)
Good point. I need to do better filtering my philosophical issues with RMS from
my issues with the GPL. :)
Like I said, I LIKE the GPL for some things. I think things like OSes, drivers,
compilers, and the like are best GPLed. But, I see nothing wrong with a company
releasing software with a license that does not allow the user to make unlimited
copies and redistribute for free, but still grants them the right to edit and
modify the source for their own personal use, or create modifications and
distribute them freely for other owners of the software. An perfect example is
id Software. I would bet dollars to donuts that if MS followed a similar scheme,
the OS would become ten times better within a year. Of course, they'd charge
more, and we're screwed even more...
> Yes, of course. I couldn't care less, personally. My belief is that
> software should be free (as in free will), for reasons described quite
> well by RMS in his papers. If this means it is not possible to make a
> profit from software development, then so be it.
Like I said, I don't think everything needs to be that way. I know how hard it
is to program good apps, and the skill it requires. If there was no way for a
programmer to be reimbursed for his effort, the current IT explosion we have
known over the past 20 years would not have happened, IMHO.
--
jesus X [ Booze-fueled paragon of pointless cruelty and wanton sadism. ]
email [ jesusx @ who.net ]
web [ http://burntelectrons.com ] [ Updated April 29, 2001 ]
tag [ The Universe: It's everywhere you want to be. ]
warning [ All your base are belong to us. ]
