Re: Free software, proprietary software and Stalin

[Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 12:49:54PM +0530, Suresh Ramasubramanian wrote:
> The GNU project is also about freedom of choice - having a cost effective
> alternative to being locked into forced, high priced upgrades every other
> month for software which tends to crash more than function properly.

I'm not so sure. No doubt, GNU software has resulted in cost effective
free software, but that is not the main goal. Ask RMS and he'll tell
that "free" as in speech is a higher goal than providing "free" as
in beer software.

> Objectivism ... Communism ... GNU is ~not~ an "ISM" for God's
> sake.  Take free market economy to its extreme limits and you get the
> slumlords and sadistic overseers of the Industrial Revolution (or Fritz
> Lang's classic "Metropolis").
> 
> Get communism and you are forced to give up ALL rights to the state - and
> have no freedom of choice at all.  George Orwell's 1984.  
>

Well said. I'm arguing that GPL, GNU ideals = communism, an extreme
and that we should find the middle ground and that middle ground is the
BSD license.

I think that BSD licensed software is more practical and benefits the
end user more than GPL'ed software, because GPL'ed software tries to
force it's philosophy into every form of software it mixes with.
 
> Ayn Rand's "Objectivism" is, at best, an extremely ill defined and
> rambling concept - a "plague on both your houses" rant rejecting both
> communism and capitalism.

It wasn't my idea. Tariq brought it up. I just noted that it didn't
match GNU ideals.

> 
> > also rejects the current "mixed economy" notion
> > that the government should regulate the economy
> 
> Utopian.  The GNU is not out to take control of your life, and arrest you
> for using non GNU products.  In fact, open source means much better
> integration with proprietory products (like those M$ trots out).

GNU project does and will attempt to sue me if I try to mix their
product in proprietary products. At least they say so publicly, though
it hasn't happened yet, AFAIK.

> 
> Nor is it a movement to suppress intellectual property - or else, within a
> few years, people would forget the original author of the program - and
> just think of it as "Written by GNU" as in "Produced by M$".  This is
> clearly false.  
> 

While it honors copyright, the GNU project is opposed to intellectual
property and patenting. At least, that is my understanding.

> In fact, the GPL is an extremely powerful guard for intellectual property.  
> If it is free - there is NO incentive to rip it off / pirate it :)  I've
> never seen warez / cracks of GPL products :)

That's an innovative definiton of property!

The general public opinion that I sense here is that Linux, a piece of
GPL'ed software has been useful to all of you. It has been useful to me
too. Therefore everything associated with it must be right. That's a
flawed argument. I think Linux did a lot of things right. GPL is
not one of them.

All said and done, I believe that software license is a personal choice.
I don't whine with GPL authors to change their license. But I don't mind
participating in rational discussion on the issue :)

	-Arun