Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again) To : comp.programming From : Randy Howard Date : Sat Aug 27 2005 12:48 am Scott Moore wrote (in article ): > Randy Howard wrote: > >> >> FWIW, I have worked on open source projects, and don't have a >> problem with them either. I simply don't see it as an "us >> versus them" problem. The Stallman crowd wants to make (almost >> literally) a holy war out of it. > > Thats pretty much the purpose. There is no fundamental conflict > between openware, freeware and paidware. In fact, all seem to have > found their place, each has value. Agreed. Open source is still in its infancy, it's a bit early to declare everything else dead anyway. > Mr. Stallman has seen software as > a fundamentally different ground, and believes that it needs to > be treated differently. The point being that the freeware/openware > movement was tolerant of paidware, and that hasn't been advancing > Mr. Stallman's cause. So, predictably, Stallman then attacked > the freeware/openware movements as not being on the "right" side > either. He often sounds very much like a television envangelist. If he started speaking in tongues I would not be very shocked. > Even the avowed purpose of the GNU organization (listed on their > web site) of removing the need to have paid software at all is > covered under the current laws, since (as the GNU site and Mr. > Stallman claims) the availability of openware/freeware should > drive paidware to extinction. He neglects to recognize that their are market niches for which there is insufficient interest to drive open source community development. I don't see this changing anytime soon either. He also fails to consider what happens when all of the .dot com millionaires currently funding a lot of open source development (perhaps out of misplaced guilt) run out of money or simply die and leave the remainder to relatives who might not be so inclined. > With all of this, why is it necessary for Mr. Stallman, and his > followers to assert that the system will not be correct until paidware > is abolished? You can't be a preacher without something to preach against. > Government monopolies set up here such as > the telephone company have massive defections when people are offered > a choice (as is in fact happening now). Skype is one of the most 'destabilizing' events I can imagine. Of course, the telecom companies are trying to make it illegal. > Stallman's goal was not, and is not, to provide an alternative to > paid software. It is to eliminate paid software, or association with it > (what Stallman has referred to as the "taint" of paid software). Which a cynic might call less of a problem than the 'taint' he gives open source in general by making outsiders think that he speaks for the entire community, through the sheer volume of his commentaries. > It > is not enough that paid software and open/freeware exist side by > side, or even that the "superiority" of open/freeware drive out > paidware. Rather, paidware must be eliminated at all costs. All costs? You mean it must be done for free. :-) If it costs anything, it must be wrong. > This, I believe, goes a long way to explain why Stallman followers > must state their case in strong moral terms. To them, its a revolution, > not a state of being. Perhaps that explains their need to accuse others of things not in evidence, and twist their words around into outright lies, and if that doesn't work to run off with their tail through their legs like happened here in the last couple of days. -- Randy Howard (2reply remove FOOBAR) .