[Subject Prev][Subject Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Subject Index][Thread Index]
Re: Signatories to the Declaration of Software Freedom
>>>>> "Arun" == Arun Sharma <arun@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
Arun> On Thu, Mar 01, 2001 at 08:07:08PM +0530, Raju Mathur wrote:
>> *Yawn* Do let me know when you've figured out the difference
>> between free speech and free beer, Arun.
Arun> That's a two year old marketing campaign, that's lost its
Arun> froth, Raju. People have figured out that free software has
Arun> nothing to do with free speech or the freedom
Arun> declaration. The freedom you're asking for is to get hold of
Arun> someone else's property for no money.
Yes. /Intellectual/ property. I believe that vital drugs should be
made available at manufacturing cost. I believe that music should be
free for all to hear, not only to those who're willing to give their
money to robber-baron music companies. I believe that I should be
able to share any book I read with my friends. I believe that if I
like a software I should be able to give it away so that other people
get the benefit of that software.
Arun> I'd compare RMS style free software to a big tank of free
Arun> beer (probably a good one), that RMS creates out of his
Arun> copious amount of free time, using the various funds that he
Arun> has access to (from people who believe that beer should
Arun> really be free) and then RMS would claim that all beer
Arun> should be free, and that drinking beer is a "human right",
Arun> which trumps "intellectual property rights". Anyone in their
Arun> sane mind would see the BS in that argument, but perhaps
Arun> some have had too much RMS beer :)
Wow, you put words in peoples' mouths and then claim that they're
talking bullshit? /That/ is an innovative way of slamming someone!
Arun> The key word is "balance". As an MS developer (Jacob ?) was
Arun> talking about RMS vs Allchin - everyone knows that
Arun> ultra-closed (Mid 90s MS style) is harmful to industry
Arun> innovation and communist style RMS philosophy (no IP) is
Arun> equally harmful. I'm arguing that balance is in BSD style -
Arun> "copy center" philosophy.
Look, I have nothing against your liking or disliking the GPL or BSD
or whatever license makes your day. I am just bored of listening to
your vapid, meaningless and usually rather childish rants against the
GPL. Methinks the gentleman doth protest too much. What're you
afraid of, anyway? No one is taking your job away. No one is asking
you to give all your software away. No one is asking you not to make
money. No one is forcing you to sign papers which take away your
freedom to do anything you want with your software or your thought
processes. So why the vehement attacks?
The only conclusion I can draw is that you're afraid of existence in a
world where all software is GPL'd, which is why you fight it every
step of the way. It's true, you and I may have to settle for a Honda
Accord instead of a Mercedes in such a world. However, I still prefer
that world to the one we live in, where sharing and enjoying are a
sin, where the spread and growth of global wealth is restricted so
that a few large companies can fill their pockets, where enrichment
and empowerment of the public are fought every step of the way by
those who have the financial and political clout. Give up your narrow
outlook and, if for nothing else, try to make a better world for your
Arun> Consider that GNU software is not used by 95% of the
Arun> computer using population. The BSD software that MS reused
Arun> (if you believe the legend) is being used by a lot more
Uh, that sounds a lot like, MS uses *BSD, MS has larger installed
base, so BSD is better. By that logic, MS by itself is the best of
all possible worlds, so let's just give up Linux, FreeBSD, all
alternatives and switch to watching our computers BSOD.
Arun> I know, how much ever I rant here on the lists, I'm not
Arun> going to get as much coverage as RMS or his
Arun> co-practitioners. Why ? Because I didn't write gcc or
Arun> emacs. Time to write bcc and bemacs that MS can ship on
Arun> their CD ?
Perhaps. It's also possible that the success of the GPL is due not
only to the software which runs under GPL but inherent strengths in
the GPL itself. Would you consider that argument for even a moment,
or will you just ignore it or paraphrase and trash it like you do with
all other arguments for the GPL?
Raju Mathur raju@xxxxxxxxxxxxx http://kandalaya.org/