Subj : Re: GNU Public Licences Revisited (again)
To   : comp.programming
From : Joe Butler
Date : Sat Sep 17 2005 03:06 am

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply everyone.  I meant to say something like,
"some of the more outspoken proponents...", but then the logic of that
seemed a bit "self-evident", and then I ended up editing and hitting send
before I should have.

I think what I was picking up on was that there was this sort of decaying
oscillation between the two remaining posters on the thread.  One was giving
very clear and reasoned responses and the other one was just coming back
again and again repeating the official doctrine as if there was no new
information to be considered.


"Richard Heathfield" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:dgfn1g$pu6$1@nwrdmz01.dmz.ncs.ea.ibs-infra.bt.com...
> Joe Butler said:
>
> >
> > I can
> > now clearly see that the proponents of free software seem a bit
> > overzealous.
>
> Not all of them.
>
> Look, it's really simple. A programmer writes a program. He now has a
choice
> - sell it, or give it away. That's HIS CHOICE. Sometimes, I choose to give
> software away. Other times, I might prefer to sell it. That's my choice.
> The product provider chooses whether to charge for his product.

No problem with that at all.

>
> > I'm now wondering if there is, say, some connection between Stalman and
> > Microsoft - and that the open source movement is simply Stalman's
attempt
> > to get even with them.
>
> No, he phoned up a site where he used to work, spoke to an ex-colleague,
and
> asked him to send over some source code (which Stallman had in fact worked
> on), and the request was refused. This took Stallman aback somewhat. He
> simply wasn't expecting that reaction*.

Ah, so I kind of guessed the situation.  "I'll show you, you turkeys!"

>
> Then it sort of got out of hand, and GNU was the result. :-)

Yes, I'm using a compiler for a project now.  It's free, which is great -
I'd pay if there was no alternative, but I would not personally have the
resources, skill or time to contribute to it.  In a way, I'm a leecher - but
that's not the point with the free software.  If it turns out in the end
that a £1000 compiler is necessary to make the code fit into a smaller chip,
then I've got no problem doing that at the end of the project if it will
save on production costs.  I'm unlikely to find a contributor to modify the
compiler in the necessary time span for the same amount of money.  Would
that compiler have cost me double or half if a free alternative was not
available (difficult to answer, I think) - and remember, I've got no
interest in delving into the inner workings of the compiler's source code
and doing it myself - totally uneconomical for me.

.