Re: [LI] Re: DVD-ROM on Linux?

[Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Dec 28, 1999 at 02:11:17PM +0518, Manoj Victor Mathew wrote:
> IMO, No, the press has /not/ highlighted the essence of the GNU
> movement. The press has positioned GNU/Linux as a viable alternative to
> WinNT and other OSes, but GNU/Linux has much more that what the press
> says.

I think exactly the opposite. A large number of journalists including
NY times have referred to what people call Linux as GNU/Linux. Often
these articles include links to www.gnu.org, which has information
that the GNU project wants the world to read.

> > 
> > But if companies want to write closed source enhancements to open
> > source software either directly or indirectly, let them do it. It only
> > benefits the average Linux user with more choice 
> 
> Availability of closed source enhancements to free software might bring
> immediate benefits to the average Linux user. But by /not/ allowing
> closed source enhancements, the average Linux user will benefit much
> more in the long run.

And the reason is ?

> Free software enhancements will give much more choice than closed
> source enhancements.

The falsehood of the above statement is self evident. Have you 
realized that closed source *is* a choice and the average Linux
user has less choice, and not more choice because of GPL precluding
closed source.

> > to run open source software, which works well for certain classes of
> > problems, where security, stability are important or pay and run
> > commercial software, which works better for certain other classes
> > of problems/situations.
> 
> There is no such rule that free software is good for only such and
> such things, and pay-and-run is good for some other specific needs.

I claim that commercial software works better if ease of use 
is the main priority. Free software authors have no 
incentive to make software easier to use. 

> India is a free country. I have freedom. I shall resist any force that
> tries to take away my freedom.

The GNU philosophy has clouded the issue by overemphasizing what they
call freedom. Should I have the freedom to withdraw money from your
bank account or take stuff away from your home because I like them ?

The ability to read the source code of someone who doesn't want to
show you the source code is *not* freedom.

> Similarly, if all software is free, then
> I shall not go for non-free software even if it gives me more
> features. Instead I shall try to make a free software equivalent.

Flawed logic. If all software is free, there will be no non-free software.

> 
> > To put it crudely, if Microsoft makes an ultra proprietary MS Linux,
> > your freedom has not been compromised. You are just as free as you are
> > today to run your distribution of choice.
> >
> 
> MS Linux being proprietary, I will not be able to use their ideas.

Why do you want to use their ideas ? Especially if they don't want
you to use their ideas ? In my book, that is theft.

> If source code for MS Linux is not available, and if the software
> community is not allowed to /use/ the source code, other software will
> not be able to benefit from it. We will end up reinventing the wheel
> many times. This 'ultra proprietary MS Linux', will take away my freedom
> to benefit from the copy of MS Linux, I bought.

You are forgetting an important distinction here. The one between
the user and the developer. In the Linux world, they are roughly
equivalent. In the real world, there is a huge difference. The 
user doesn't care about freedom to benefit from ideas and such
abstract concepts. (S)he cares about what is the best OS money can
buy that can do a given job.

> In a world where there is only free software, an 'ultra proprietary MS
> Linux' must be seen as a freedom killer. And it will take away my
> freedom, if everybody starts using this 'ultra proprietary MS Linux'.

I can see the jealous GNU charging towards Redmond :-) Why should
what everyone else uses affect your freedom ?

> Again, if everybody in India forget about the freedom of speech, we
> have, then what good will my freedom be? I will be beaten up by
> gangsters/police/neighbours/friends if I alone decide to exercise my
> freedom of speech.

Freedom of speech is not the same as the ability to repeat someone
else's proprietary words (a journalist's work for example). Freedom of
speech is the freedom to say what *you* would like to say or repeat
someone else's words, if they have permitted you to reproduce their
speech.

Again, the GNU project has used the word freedom/free in misleading ways.

Having said that, I do not like the other extreme. All words you've 
spoken are learnt by hearing someone else speak and hence derived
works. Imagine the situation of having to pay a royalty to someone
every time you used the word "foo". Over here in the US, the situation
is getting dangerously close to this.

The right balance IMO, is somewhere in between.

	-Arun