Re: Free software, proprietary software and Stalin

[Arun Sharma <adsharma@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Feb 29, 2000 at 02:09:06PM -0000, SANIsoft wrote:
> 
> Free software  means that *I* also have the freedom not to give it away for
> free - not to sell it at a price lower than *I* feel it deserves or vice
> versa

Bang on target!

The above is true, only if you've written everything from scratch. That's
not true in the free software world - where the basic philosophy is to
utilize existing code.

If you've used GPL'ed code in your program, you lose the freedom you refer
to above. The BSD license keeps that freedom intact. That's the whole point
of the GPL Vs BSD debate.

> 
> I give away a whole lot of scripts I write because
> 1) I can
> 2) It serves my vanity
> 3) It is a great PR excercise
> 
> Is that being altruistic (and how many developers can say that they do what
> they do for anything else ....)
> 
> all that may sound rather green - but then I have the freedom to do it.
> 

I note that you don't have
4) Convert the whole world to write and use free software exclusively

as a goal for your actions. Therefore I argue that you should release your
software under the BSD license.

I think people who work for companies that make and use proprietary
software during the day and argue for GNU ideals by night are
hypocrites. Then there are people who don't necessarily agree with the
GNU ideals, but still use GPL as a tool to achieve their goals. I think
Linux falls into this category - as stated by Linus at various interviews.

Most of the world either
(a) Doesn't care
(b) Thinks GPL is a better license because Slashdot editors keep referring to
    it as cool 
(c) It has made it to a few T-shirts, therefore must be better than other 
    licenses.

	-Arun