Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!ai-lab!jla
From: jla@wheaties.ai.mit.edu (Joseph Arceneaux)
Newsgroups: comp.os.minix
Subject: Re: Selling of free software
Message-ID: <9821@galapas.ai.mit.edu>
Date: 10 Aug 90 14:38:52 GMT
References: <5414@castle.ed.ac.uk> <26259@usc.edu> <26149@nigel.udel.EDU> <6--4A8C@xds13.ferranti.com> <1990Aug8.173146.1206@santra.uucp> <+:258U1@xds13.ferranti.com>
Reply-To: jla@galapas.ai.mit.edu (Joseph Arceneaux)
Organization: The GNU Project
Lines: 70

In article <+:258U1@xds13.ferranti.com> peter@ficc.ferranti.com (Peter da Silva) writes:

>> I don't mind that situation either; what I _do_ mind if I post /
>> publish some code to the public domain, then someone else comes and
>> (perhaps improving the code somewhat, perhaps deleting my name,
>> perhaps omiting documentation and source, perhaps doing something
>> else) starts selling the code so that the buyer of that program isn't
>> allowed to redistribute.

>I don't mind that either. The choice is this guy is going to use my code
>and be a black hole, or he's not going to use it, then I let him use it.
>There are people I know are using bits of my code in commercial programs.
>More power to them. The total intelligence of the world still rises, and
>nobody actually loses.

No, the people who don't get the code lose.  If someone makes
interesting improvements and folks start buying that version, sans
source, then you have effectively wiped out the `intelligence' of a
block of users.

Your choice is really whether or not you want to promote the spirit of
innovation and the freedom to make contributions, in which your
your code was released in the first place.

>And if he makes significant improvements to my code (which wasn't of
>commercial quality in the first place, most likely) then who am I to deny
>*him* the fruits of his labors?

But the reason this person could make significant improvements is that
he had the code.  So if that's a good thing (which it is), then an
even better thing would be for all the users of that improved version
to have the chance to make the thing even better.

>> For these reasons, if I'll make some sizable contributions to Minix
>> (or any other effort-taking software development for that matter),
>> I'll probably put them under the GNU copyright.

>This will pretty much guarantee that I won't use them.

It's too bad that you choose to restrict the rights, and
intelligence as you put it, of programmers/users in this fashion.

I have even heard of researchers who can't use GNU tools because their
sponsors worry about being able to someday sell the [conceivable]
product.  Restricting research in this fashion, for hopes of eventual
financial gain, is most reprehensible.

>I believe this, too, is available freely. It's just commercial quality
>versions, nicely shrink-wrapped and with support, that don't come for
>free.

This is untrue.  GNU Emacs has been ranked superior to various
competitors by Un*x publications.  The GNU C Compiler seems to
generate better code than a variety of commercial compilers.  As for
support, I have frequently seen 4 or 5 responses, in the same day, to
questions posed on the emacs mailing list.  This seems to be far
better support than is available for most commercial products.

Note that this level of support would not be available unless the
code was free.

>Berkeley UNIX was never "free", but they're working hard to make it so.

Code is not `free' if users have to pay exhorbitant license fees to
obtain it.  Code is Free if everyone who desires it has easy access.

So if someone takes Public Domain <whatever>, modifies it and then
requires big bucks for their newly copyrighted version, that code is
not free.  Copyleft is the only instrument which really guarantees the
freedom of a program.