Re: Re: [LI] (long,slightly oft) Richard Stallmans lecture clippings

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxx>]

>>"Arun" == Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

 Arun> I never admitted that I don't "get" the free software
 Arun> movement. I don't have any dispute with open software
 Arun> principles/definitions either.

        I beg pardon. I was extrapolating. However, you did admit to
 not being persuaded enough by the movement to consider contributions
 to the code base that you were not paid for, or that is the
 impression that I got. 

 Arun> True. But the division is a more recent thing. I'd characterize
 Arun> the FSF as a "fringe" movement (in terms of numbers) and only
 Arun> in the last few years has it become more mainstream. And the
 Arun> particular division that I'm talking about is after he started
 Arun> the GNU/Linux thing.

        Actually, a lot of us Linux folks have a great deal of respect
 for RMS (though I agree he ruffled our feathers with his
 characteristic lack of tact). And I think I find at the LWE and other
 Linux meetings that people are indeed not opposed to the GNU/Linux
 thang; they just were upset initially at the way it was asked.

        Given the penetration of GNU tolls (gcc, emacs, shell and
 files utils), I would not characterize GNU or the FSF as fringe,
 really. 


 Arun> I don't have a problem with what you're in it for. I have a
 Arun> problem with your/RMS's ideology on what I should be doing for
 Arun> a living - specifically forbidding the selling of closed source
 Arun> software.

        I think you are mistake about our ideology. I have no problem
 with you, or microsoft, or anyone writing proprietary software --
 even RMS, who considers it agasinst his ethos, does not impose it on
 others. 

        I do believe you are not the target audience I spend all my
 effort on. I am wworking towards a community of people, and you have
 choosen not to be a part. You certainly have the right, and I, and
 others like me, would not bother you if you just leave our beliefs
 alone.

        I do find that your characterization of my belief sets
 belittles it -- I am part of an experiment in building a community, a
 new way of coming together, and the rewards are certainly not
 monetary. I am not being altruistic -- I am not putting the code
 forth for all to use in pure altruism. I am building a code base,
 along with the community -- and you often rise against that.

        I have rarely come out against the proponents of the BSD
 licence (belienve me, I have opinions about the likes of Theo), but
 you have, often, called us deluded or brain washed.

        If you would allow the plausibility of others having a belief
 set different from your, and concede that those ethos can be valid,
 without delusion, or being brainwashed, we can get along.

 Arun> If that is an admission that RMS philosophy has communist
 Arun> ideals, then I congratulate you for having done that.  I
 Arun> believe that communism has good points and open source software
 Arun> has good points too.

        Actually, I believe that the free software movement has too
 much eliticism to actually be to much like communism; and the
 similarity is mostly in the dismissal of the profit motive. 

        Unlike communism, it is not pure egalitarianism: the rewards,
 what they are, of the free software movement are definitely not
 equally distributed.

        The rewards just happen not to be materialistic.

 Arun> But forcing that on everyone for everything is what I disagree
 Arun> with.

        I disagree about the coercion involved. When person X writes
 software, and puts it under the GPL, there is no arm twisting
 involved for anyone to base their own software on the code.

        When pereson Y writes code, and puts it under the BSD licence,
 they have no interest in what is done with it, as long as it
 is used, and their name is on it.

        In the former case, the licence is such that code can't be
 taken away, improved upon, and be locked away from the community:
 There is no such protection in the latter case. The former case
 causes an synergistic exchange of ideas and code, that is often
 impossible for a lone developer or organization.

        If ones goal is to create a community around a code base, and
 to improve and increase the code base, the GPL is protection. Sure,
 it can be done without the GPL -- but all efforts in the past failed
 to get the critical mass, since it is so easy for code to escape, and
 copntribution back to the community not be made.

 Arun> Yes. Specifically, the view of people who want *all* software to be
 Arun> free.

        True enough. I _would_ want all software to be free -- I am
 pragmatic enough ot to demand it.

 >> Yes, from people who want to milk money out of every bit of
 >> code they right (did you not admit you only contribute to fe3e
 >> software because you are paid to do it?).

 Arun> Now that's getting personal and you're guessing. 

        I do apologize. 

 Arun> I just said I got paid for my work. I did not say
 Arun> "because". Not all software that I write is paid for.  The best
 Arun> software that I've written was paid for. I see free software as
 Arun> a donation - an act of philonthropy. Not an end in itself.

        I stand corrected. You just dsaid that your kernel
 contribution was paid for, and some other contributors were in the
 same boat -- they wrote for the kernel because it was their job to do
 so.

        I have, in the past, written code for companies where the
 deadline pressure, and the tyrrany of the time to market mitigated
 against a release that was as polished as it should have been

        On the other hand, my free code is a labour of love; and it
 carries my reputation with it. Code that I write for free software is
 amongst the best that I have written -- since it can be, and the only
 one I am answering to is my honour.

 >> I can see why the GPL is disturbing to you.

 Arun> I'm not "disturbed" by GPL. Perhaps it was appropriate for RMS
 Arun> when people were making money off of his source code - emacs
 Arun> and he wanted to prevent that.

        Actually, preventing making money was not an issue -- not
 contributing improvements was. You can still sell GPL'd software for
 however much the market can bear.

 Arun> I just don't think that is in the interests of the end users of
 Arun> free software because they get less choice by not being able to
 Arun> choose between commercial and free software.

        They can choose to pay whatever they want. 

        I think where we differ is that I think that open source code
 actually tends to create better quality software than otherwise (I
 have seen the source code that companies produce when marketing --
 and not peer review -- drives. *Shudder*)

 Arun> It is also not in the interests of the developers - because
 Arun> a free software based economy can employ fewer programmers than
 Arun> a hybrid economy containing both commercial and free software.

        I think we have nothing to worry about there, as yet. And even
 if all code were free, the only loss of employment is in the constant
 reinventing of the wheel -- companies would still pay to get custom
 software built cheaply on free code (I am getting paid doing just
 that). The model shall change, but the volume may not. 

        And the increase efficiency, and the boost in code quality and
 volume would make up for the less labour spent reinventing what
 someone else already has done.

        I think we are on the brink of an explosion of software -- and
 closed source software is a hindrance to that explosion

 Arun> And I don't think the ideal world that FSF envisions is going
 Arun> to happen. They'll have to shutdown all book publishers, music
 Arun> companies, movie companies and currency printing facilities
 Arun> first. These are all restricting your freedom to read books,
 Arun> listen to music, see movies and buy what one likes.

        There is a difference when you talk about books and other
 items that takes energy and investment to dupplicate.

        However, there is other fallacy in this view: people say the
 same thing whenever a new model or methodolgy comes forth.

        Back in the beginning of this century, people complained abot
 the horseless carriages and how that was going to be the death
 of London. You see, a hansom cab had three or four shifts, and that
 meant 3 or four horses, and drivers, and the stabling for the horses,
 and the hay, and the cleanup cew that kept the streets clean. All of
 this was threatened by the horseless carriage, and by gar! the
 horseless cab!

        And then there was the hysteria about automation leaving
 masses of people unemployed in the US.Have you looked at unemployment
 recently? Lowest in decades, just when we are at our most automated.

        Yes, small grocery stores, mom and pop stores, any brick and
 mortar business that does not expand on the web, stock brokers,
 travel agents -- all these face serious challenges, and must adapt,
 or loose theur jobs.

        Possibly, software producers shall have to adapt. No more
 recreating the same thing over and over again. No more "Not invented
 here". Fewer, more competent software engineers, who write code for
 the vast new market there is. No longer do we have to hoard code in
 order to make a living.

        We can have free code, more interesting work, less sweatshops
 -- and a community.

        We, if I amy say so, Have A Dream. And if you do not dream,
 is not huality losing?

 Arun> And I'm getting a little tired of correcting all the things that you're
 Arun> accusing me of in this thread. 

        And I am tired of correcting the the mould you impose on all
 people who are pro-free software. In my defence, I am only wonnging
 an individual: you are caricaturizing a whole class of people.

        manoj
-- 
 Real Users find the one combination of bizarre input values that
 shuts down the system for days.
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@xxxxxxxxxx>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05  CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C