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

[Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, Feb 24, 2000 at 10:21:08PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
>         I do find that your characterization of my belief sets
>  belittles it

I try not to - but I end up being harsh at times. To err is human..

> 
>         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.
> 

I'd say it's passive coercion. It's tempting - it works well and it's
free. But once you get into it - you're consumed by it. It's all or
nothing.

>         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.

The intention is that more good code gets written as a result - both
commercial and free. Sometimes commercial software makes it into the
free alternative, typically when the market window is closed i.e. the
company doesn't stand to make any more money and wants to cash in on
the good will generated.

That said, the examples of companies having gained from BSD is more than
examples of companies that have given back. But that's not a surprise.

But since free software is a great technical solution to some of the
software problems, it can provide a spring board for many new startups
that can bring innovations to end users faster.

>         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

Agree. Those are all pitfalls of commercial software.

>  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*)

There is truth in what you say. But there are also classes of software
where commercial software is better today and free software hasn't proven
itself.

My ideal world would have a free version of WinUNIX (Yeah, there is
a hidden message in the name :-), which is great for hacking around
for educational and research purposes, as well as custom software
solutions. It would also keep the commercial vendor Moon Microsystems,
the vendor of highly scalable BigUNIX operating system honest, both 
in overcharging for software and pursuing ultra proprietary paths.

At the same time, the leading purveyor of office software, NanoSoft
sells a easy to install and use EasyUNIX along with its market leading
office 2010, which also runs on WinUNIX - a popular operating system
among developers because of its high customizability.

> 
>  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. 

That's an interesting argument. I'll come back to that when I find
enough time. 

>  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.

I'd argue that books (e-books, photocopied books for example), music,
movies and software fall in the same category - low cost of replication
but medium/high cost of production and use by a large number of people.

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

Those are noble goals and I'd be all for GPL if those goals can be
achieved. However, if they can't be, GPL would be hinderance to progress,
because of its exclusive nature.

In addition to all the good things you list above, a developer has to
worry about sustenance in a capitalist world we live in. Though plenty
of resources (software) is availble in the world, they may not reach
the consumers because of articificial barriers.

To quote Amartya Sen, famines are rarely the result of shortage of food.
It's due to a vicious cycle of financial losses and resulting in fiscal
conservatism, resulting in further losses. So though there is a lot of
food present, people are unable to get to the food - because they don't
have the money to buy. So money here is an artificial barrier.

Under a communist system, such an artificial shortage/famine can't happen.
Available resources are equally shared among everyone.

Similarly, money has created artificial barriers among software developers,
that prevent code sharing. Free software solves some of those problems.
I respect Stallman's pioneering work for that.

But the transition from one system to the other is not easy. And each
system has its merits. One has to just find the right balance.

	-Arun