Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Duane Bozarth Date : Tue Aug 23 2005 12:41 pm gswork@mailcity.com wrote: > > Duane Bozarth wrote: > > "Arthur J. O'Dwyer" wrote: > > ... > > > (Tangent: Stallman uses the murder-is-wrong analogy to ridicule those > > > programmers who complain that they can't write free software because they > > > need a commercial salary. "So it's okay to kill someone and take their > > > money, because you need money?" No! A big salary doesn't excuse > > > wrongdoing! And if you really can't make an honest living in /free/ > > > software design, you should go do something else for a few years. Build > > > houses, or become a policeman, or do something else that's not > > > intrinsically immoral.) > > ... > > > > Of course, there's the rub there--why is software for profit inherently > > any less a moral endeavor than any other commercial endeavor? > > > > Answer--there is no reason. > > i suppose the whole argument above relies on this ethical idea and if > the idea fails then so does the argument. In this context the GPL > would become 'just another license' with no particular ethical > position. .... That's my belief/opinion. I see no superiority in GPL. I think the idea got started from the belief (which undoubtedly has some basis in past behavior) that individuals/businesses have taken work of others and gained personal advantage from it. That there may well have been unethical actions in the past (or even continuing) is a different issue of the morality of an endeavor. .