Re: Re: Free software, proprietary software and Stalin

[Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@xxxxxxx>]

Hi,

        I may have missed some messages -- the list was strangely
 silent over the weekend. In particular, I wrote a longish mail
 message that evoked no responses that I recieved. Please email me if
 you actually saw a message from me about the economics of fee
 software. 

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

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

        Thisis yor opinion, and I beg to differ. My take is that the
 *BSD licence suits people whose sole concern is self aggrandizement:
 their only concern is that their name is on the software; and they
 have no concerns about community, or what happens to their software.

        The GPL adherent does not care about the cost -- they care
 about having a growing code base, and ex-plicitly provide
 their code for others who are willing to contribute back. For these
 people, the GPL provides a degree of protection that the BSD licences
 do not. 

        Also, the *BSD licence is favoured by those who want to make
 money off (pardon me) gullible coders who are not protecting
 themselves, and who have no compuctions about taking the code, making
 modifications, and making the code proprietary. 

        I understand that there are going to be people at the fringe
 of the movement that are in it only for money, and I can live with
 that; however, it rouses my ire when these entities try to convince
 people not to enact protections for their software that theGPL
 provides.

        In other words, I am pointing out that exhortations to use BSD
 licences rather than the stronger GPL could have ulterior motives;
 espescially if the person from whom they come has already stated that
 monetary incentives are a strong driving force for them.

 Arun> I think that BSD licensed software is more practical and benefits the
 Arun> end user more than GPL'ed software, because GPL'ed software tries to
 Arun> force it's philosophy into every form of software it mixes with.
 
        It is the community, S----d (no offence intended). Yes, the
 GPL code is by and for the community that embraces the GPL -- and
 others are largely irrelevant to the community membvers.

        So,  if you care about the fee software communiuty, the GPL
 actually provides protection for it -- and is way more practical than
 the BSD licences are to achieve those ends.

        Of course, if you want to make money off other peoples
 efforts, the GPL is a bad idea -- but not all of us are motivated by
 money alone.

 Arun> GNU project does and will attempt to sue me if I try to mix their
 Arun> product in proprietary products. At least they say so publicly, though
 Arun> it hasn't happened yet, AFAIK.
        
        If it is my code you use, please be advised that I *shall* sue
 you to protect what I feel is the community. If you don't liek that,
 don't use GPL'd code -- you are not the target audience for it.

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

        We even honour patents. And we try, within the law, to use the
 copyright to *give* rights to the users rather than remove it from
 them. I find it kinda ironic.

        manoj
-- 
 If another scientist thought your research was more important than
 his (or hers), he would drop what he is doing and do what you are
 doing.
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