Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Randy Howard Date : Wed Aug 24 2005 12:22 am Arthur J. O'Dwyer wrote (in article ): >> Fair enough, so don't take any of this as aimed at you directly. > > I knew what I was in for. ;-) Cool. >>> Software should be free. >> >> No. Free software is fine, fwiw, but I do not see an argument >> that all software should be free. There is no moral reason for >> it > > Huh. Well, Stallman disagrees. And Stallman is a nutcase control-freak. A brilliant one perhaps, but still. > (Similarly, some people don't see > anything inherently immoral about pot-smoking, or abortion, or murder, > or promoting democracy. Some people do. It's all relative, the > post-modernists would say. Certainly it's /subjective/.) There is nothing remotely similar between programming and illegal acts. Unless you can point to a law that makes it illegal to work developing commercial software (in general), the above is a total crock of excrement. >>> If Microsoft (for example) distributes an >>> operating system that the user can't tweak, check for security holes, or >>> give to his friends, that's just plain wrong. >> >> No it is not. It might be a bad idea for you to buy it, and if >> you do, you get and deserve the results obtained. > > Ehm? Sounds to me like maybe you do think it's wrong --- you're just > refusing to come out and say it. No, I'm saying that if you /pay/ for software, and it doesn't work, you might not like having wasted your money. However, if it does what you want it to do, then you will probably feel like you got a decent deal. There is nothing wrong with it. Besides, for most people, the risk of security problems between commercial and open software is basically the same. They are NOT going to go checking, tweaking, etc. for security problems. This Stallman-esque argument only carries what little weight it does within the programmer community, but falls completely on its face within the much larger general population. > Stallman says, "Non-free software is > morally reprehensible." You say, "Anyone who buys non-free software and > finds out it's junk deserved what they got." And, anyone that downloads and uses open source software and finds out is junk deserves what they got. It works both ways. there is ZERO guarantee that open source software is better, equivalent, or more secure than commercial alternatives. The only given is the entry cost is lower. The maintenance cost could be much higher over the long haul, or it could be much lower. As usual, 'it depends'. >> If there is anything wrong in the software arena today, it is >> that so many people are willing to pay good money for bad >> products. > > (I'm assuming you're /not/ equating "non-free" and "bad" here. :) No, but quite a bit of commercial software is bad, but people will pay for it anyway, much as lemmings follow the one in front to their doom. There is also a stunning amount of bad open source software out there too. There are a small set of very high quality open source projects that are as good or better as commercial alternatives, which the rest of the 'movement' makes hay off of, to varying degrees of credibility. >> software. But, once again, people have a choice, thanks in >> large point to open source software, NOT to agree to such >> things. Of course, the legal argument might be stronger >> /without/ open source alternatives. As it is, it's difficult to >> argue that you were /forced/ to agree to get work done, when >> alternatives are available. > > Right. Which from the moral standpoint is a good thing: Since free > alternatives are available, people must choose between good and evil, > rather than simply "following orders" (to invoke Godwin's Law;). It's not between good and evil. There is no law, or moral precedent for claiming that people charging for their work product is evil. Why isn't stallman insisting that artists don't charge for their paintings or sculpture, or doctors perform brain surgery for no charge? What kind of deranged cult-leader does it take to come up with the theory that you should spend many $$$$$$ on a college education to learn how to write software, then do it for free for the rest of their life while bussing tables at McDonald's? Furrfu. >> Sorry, but I don't see this. There was very little 'open >> source' software to steal from back then. Apart from the TCP >> stack, what other examples can you point to? > > Well, I was thinking of the stuff that (as you probably know) I wasn't > actually alive for --- the early operating systems, compiler technology, > the core ideas of threadedness, Fortran, Algol, Lisp, what have you. > Which, unencumbered by copyright and trade secrets (according to legend), > spread to influence a lot of work done thereafter. A lot of ideas spread, sure. Pretty much all "real" software outside of Universities was commercial, and not open source. Some companies provided source code for products, but only under strict licensing, and in cases where for the most part there really was no competition. You didn't have the right to use the source for other work, or distribute it either. There was some "shareware" out there, of widely varying quality, which by today's standards would be called "freeware" instead, with /some/ of it having source code available. user groups would publish small programs in newsletters, or on bulletin boards, magazines would publish code for small utilities, etc. You could not pop out your 1200 baud modem and go download the source code for an office suite though. > If I'm wrong, please remove the "same tricks they did back in the '80s" > and replace with "tricks they could still do in the future if not for > the GPL." ;) Such 'tricks' are /only/ possible because there is open source software to steal from. If all software was commercial, and failing theft of trade secrets, the potential would not exist. The fact is Stallman likes the idea of free software, and I do too. The problem is he wants to remake the entire software space into his own view of how it should be. >>> So? People shouldn't use closed-source software, because it's wrong. >> >> No, it's not wrong. > > "Look, I came here for an argument. This is just contradiction!" > "No it isn't." Okay, you explain, and please be specific, exactly how it using closed-source software is wrong. It must be so in all cases, and you must support it. When you have made a properly formulated absolute position, I will be happy to blow holes in it for you. >> [...] In fact there are times when you have no >> choice. There are a lot of vertical apps for which there are >> zero open source alternatives, for example. > > As I mentioned below, in Stallman's view there is no excuse. Does the > murderer get a free pass if he'd starve otherwise? No! So why should the > user of evil non-free software get a pass simply because there's no > alternative yet? Because, once again, murder is against the law, and using commercial software is not. > Let him write his own program, if he's too impatient or > disconnected to get someone else to write it! Once again, the fallacy that all users are programmers. *sigh* >> Yes, commercial apps have problems too, but you don't >> have to spend three days tracking through release notes, CVS, >> wikis and what not figuring out what a 'valid bug report' looks >> like, you can just pick up the phone and ask for help. There is >> a difference to end users on the support end with commercial via >> open source software. > > Definitely. Stallman calls this "a choice between monopolies." With > commercial code, you get locked into a single tech-support provider, who, > being a monopoly, usually does a decent job. Correct. > The tech-support market for > free software is much more chaotic and free-market-capitalistic, and in > practice ends up being pretty bad, at the moment. Horrible, if it is even there at all. It is not ready for prime-time, but usually quite adequate if you are already quite a capable techie yourself. >> I think you missed the point. If the lifted code was good, and >> Microsoft put it in their products, then all their customers >> would benefit. yes, MS would benefit, but so would their >> customers. It's anathema to open source developers, but the end >> result of having massively peer-reviewed code in more places >> would be beneficial overall. > > More places than what? Microsoft's code isn't "massively > peer-reviewed." I was referring to the 'lifted' libraries and what not. > Giving code to Microsoft for free would be increasing the > amount of /non/-peer-reviewed code in the world, not vice versa. (And > besides, so what? This isn't about engineering practices, it's about > morality.) And I have yet to hear a single convincing argument that it is immoral to work for a living in the field of which you are most competent. Feel free to provide one at your convenience. >> As a pure consumer, would you be better off personally if all of >> your commercial software product vendors had access to open >> source code to include in their products? Yes. Would it be >> worth it to you to pay money for chunks of code from various >> places glued together /and supported/ from a single vendor? In >> all likelihood, yes. > > Yes. Would it be beneficial for you to clean out your employer's > checking account? :) Not unless you find it a benefit to be incarcerated. YMMV. >> Yes, easy for Stallman to say, when he has food on the table. >> Telling others that they have no right to work for a living is >> such crap. In fact, it is the biggest fault I see with his >> arguments. You can't expect others to starve to further your >> personal agenda. > > Oh, Stallman isn't against /working/. He's against /non-free software/. Sure he is. If you work for a software company that doesn't give away source code, he's against you. > How is the situation any different with paid programmers, *once > you accept* (or agree to take as given) that non-free programs are > morally wrong? Why would any rational person accept such a ludicrous position? Are copyrighted books morally wrong? Why is Ford allowed to sell cars, without Stallman insisting that they give them away? >> Such complete hogwash. If Stallman wants to live in a tent, >> mopping floors between coding session, that is his right. To >> expect others to do something similar, while calling them >> immoral if they don't is /evil/. > > Heh. :) > > -Arthur -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) .