Re: Bigotry ?? [was --> Re: What is Linux ?]

["Indranil Das Gupta" <indradg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Arun,

> "Community" is not the cause,
> it's a tool to ensure the survival of GPL'ed software.

So you finally agree that there /is/ in fact a "community" ? ;-)

> I don't have a problem with the word community, as long as it is used
> in a neutral sense, as a group of people.

In my book having an option to choose and being neutral is not one and
the same thing. As long as you are making an /informed choice/, whcih
may not be based on philosophy but entirely on the basis of technology
or suitability for a certain purpose, I fail to see how you can remain
neutral to any issue since you /are/ taking a stand about something, if
not a side. Being neutral is more like being an opportunist
fence-sitter. A person don't have to be neutral in order to admit that
there can more than one side to any given issue, it is also by far the
more politically correct and tolerant view of the world. ;)

> All I'm asking for is to recognize that philanthropy and business are
> both necessary for us 

Indeed, I do recognise that. I do not try to ram down GPL down the
throat of anybody & everybody. At the same time when I want the
safeguards that GPL affords to me personally, I feel I am absolutely
within my rights to do that... 

But who defines the proportions of balance between philanthropy
and business...?? You will probably want yourself be the judge of that
(ie. "I give away what I feel like or want to"). So, what do you do
when certain corporate entities chooses to turn a open standard into a
proprietory one, resulting in breakage in interoperability? What
happens when a corporate entity suddenly decides to start charging
royalties for an industry standard format that had been available
freely for years, only because it holds the IP rights over it (eg.
Unisys) ?

> and there is no need to artificially mix the two or /exclude/
>  one class of people from the group. Specifically, the
> group I'm talking about is closed source programmers. I'm saying that
> we can all live together peacefully. You are, by adopting GPL, saying
> that we can not.

What you are saying translates to something like -- its ok for the
closed
source programmers to benefit from the knowledge-base or efforts of the
Opensource community while they choose to remain closed source.

Businesses are inherently driven by the motive to achieve higher
profits for its investors. Not that there is anything wrong with that
in a market-driven open economy.No one questions the R&D investments
and pains taken by a closed source s/w co in developing a particular
s/w. But to use that as lever to realise abnormal profits, arm-twist
partners and collaborators and most importantly the /users/ is not OK
with me.

1. Looking back into the history of personal computing, MS got into the
field with its OS largely due to a DoJ anti-trust actions against IBM
and today it is facing a similar dilemma itself. Talk about the wheel
turning a full circle.... why in the country synonymous with capitalism
and free market, do the govt. has to step in against the certain
actions of a monopolistic entity which literally has become "too big
for its own boots"? Everything MS is being accused of has been possible
because of the proprietory nature of its s/w. Its predatory policies to
unethically drive out the competition has not always been because it
had a better technology. You know that fact like anyone else.

2. The days are past when companies could develop captive markets
buying tieing down its customers by selling closed, proprietory
products. Today, most people and companies in the IT industry have
realised the benefits of going in for some sort of Open Sourcing and
use of Open standards that allow for interoperability, reliability and
large-scale availability of solutions. We all know what the outcomes
were of the fact that the IBM PCs could be cloned and Apple Macs
couldn't (ie. for a really long time)... today the PC is an ubiquitous
piece of h/w on every desktop.

GPL and OpenSource (which is really a huge umbrella for licenses of
many shades of grey) are undeniable movements. Whatever we have to say
about it is least likely have too much of an effect on it. 

regards,
--Indra.