On 1/19/06, Mike McCarty <mike.mccarty@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > jdow wrote: > > > > THAT is a fatuous comment. If I have to spend all my time offering support > > then I have no time to develop new stuff. I eventually starve. Basically > > that statement says I must have another source of income than writing > > software if I am to be a sole proprietor consultant designing software. > > Thanks, Joanne. I had (as perhaps you may have read in other mails > I have sent) e-mail contact with Richard Stallman several years ago. > He has a social agenda that many people are just not aware of, and > they are likewise not aware of the perhaps less obvious consequences > of GPL (and LGPL). Most people are not aware that RS considers > capitalism to be evil (at least in regards to creation of software). > He has a social agenda of stamping out rewarding creative people > for doing creative work. Put plainly, he does not believe in > licensing software. He thinks it is morally reprehensible to do > so. He believes that one should only sell copies, not license > use. Everyone is aware of his "social agenda". He's very upfront about it. In fact, he often embarasses Tim O'Reily at conventions with his views. He has an entire website devoted to his views, in fact. Perhaps you've heard of it. It's found at http://www.gnu.org/ He doesn't believe capitalism to be evil, he believes the traditional copyright doesn't make sense for something as malleable as software.[1] > > I made the comment as a throwaway not intended as a troll. Rightly or > > wrongly I perceive two things, it is impossible for me to write code for > > a GPLed system in such a way as to protect my own work from the accidental > > side effects of the GPLed system's licenses. I'd need a corps of lawyers > > These "side effects" are not accidental, and they are not side effects. > RS wants to stamp out capitalism in software development. The GPL was > created for the express purpose of killing UNIX and promoting GNU. > If it manages to kill all other commercial software along the way, > he'd be even happier. No, it wasn't created for the express purpose of killing UNIX (which is more properly written as Unix[2]) and promoting GNU. It was created for the express purpose of continuing the sharing of software and ideas that were prevalent at the MIT AI lab in the late 1970s and early 1980s. RMS is a researcher, a computer scientist, and as such, likes exchanging ideas with other scientists. Commercial interests decided they could make money off software and came up with the whole "licensing" idea that we're all familiar with today (read: there was no such thing as an EULA back in the day). The only way to force people to pay for software was to make sure folks couldn't make or improve the software on their own. They'd have to buy it, and all the improvements, from the vendor. You do that by locking up the source and calling it a trade secret. RMS was accustomed to innovation in software and that innovation was founded in people sharing their works with others. In the interests of continuing this collaborative effort, he created the GNU Foundation and the GNU Public License that represents this ideal of share and share alike. > > to review everything. I cannot afford that. Nor am I allowed by some > > persons' ethics (particularly RS) to earn money from my work directly. > > If I write it I "must" release source code or be "unethical". But if > > I release source code for a purely software project and do not have time > > to "make my money from support" then some company like RedHat will make > > the money instead of me. My stomache does not agree with that concept. > > It insists on periodic infusions of food, the acquisition of which costs > > the money RS declares I am unethical enough to demand. Scroom, the bastard. > > Well said, agreed to, and seconded. Amen. A statement that is complete BS. How about MySQL AB? They seem to be doing pretty well for themselves selling commerically licensed versions of otherwise GPL software. They'd still be making money even if they weren't providing support themselves because people wanting to use their software in a proprietary product *have to pay real money for a license to do so.*[3] > > That's enough statement for my purposes. It's off topic here. This > > discussion should stop now. It's not going to change MY opinion. Nor is > > it likely to change the opinion of other people who must work for their > > food and do not want to be tied down to an employer who might manage > > to RedHat their way through the world. > > Nor is it likely to change the minds of college kids who live off their > parents, and think [L]GPL is a Good Thing(tm). Because there is no need to change *their* minds. It's *your* mind that's full of Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt, and it's all based on misinformation and what I can only surmise is sheer pigheadedness. Great way to insult everyone on the list in your parting shot, by the way. Pity your private "OFF LIST" message actually ended up on the list. As for my "college kid" mind that thinks the "[L]GPL is a Good Thing(tm)", it's not set foot on a college campus in over 10 years. I make my living off people that think cellular phones are a pretty neat idea. [1] http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html#AboutFreeSoftware [2] http://www.answers.com/topic/unix-1#Hacker_Slang [3] http://www.mysql.com/company/legal/licensing/ -- Chris "I trust the Democrats to take away my money, which I can afford. I trust the Republicans to take away my freedom, which I cannot."
