Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!samsung!sdd.hp.com!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!ncar!gatech!udel!ee.udel.edu
From: new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Message-ID: <43377@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Date: 1 Feb 91 00:02:07 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <1682@digi.lonestar.org>
Sender: usenet@ee.udel.edu
Organization: University of Delaware
Lines: 55
Nntp-Posting-Host: snow-white.ee.udel.edu

In article <1682@digi.lonestar.org> kgallagh@digi.lonestar.org (Kevin Gallagher) writes:
>Lots of people modify public domain software and then resell it.  The original 
>author(s) receive nothing for their original blood, sweat, and tears, even though
>a substantial portion of the final modified product was left untouched.  

I object to FSF taking something like ghostscript and putting it out as
freeware. I don't mind people taking a minor part of an interface (eg,
the behaviour of 1-2-3 menus, say, or the picture of a trashcan) and
using the idea in their own software. I don't object to people
reimplementing software where the majority of the work does *not* have
to do with "look and feel" (eg, a C compiler).

I *do* object to software like ghostscript and GNU Smalltalk. Adobe
spent mucho bucks coming up with a language that is flexible and fairly
easy to implement efficiently. XEROX PARC spent literally decades
working Smalltalk into a useful and easy to use package.  FSF takes
their entire design, recodes it, and then sells it as their own.  I
think this is wrong.

This is not competition. This is merely theft of other people's
research and development, merely taking advantage of the current legal
situation. No wonder FSF is fighting against "look and feel" copyright
suits and the software patents: much of the freeware is clearly
"ripped off" from products developed by other companies. 

Think: originally, the first "look and feel" case was between two
greeting-card manufacturs. The first had a staff of dozens of artists
and copywriters. The process of making a new card required weeks of
work, communication, management approval, and so on.  The second
company had one artist and no copywriter: this owner would go into card
stores, look at what the competition did, return to work, and describe
it to the artist, who would then duplicate the card.  The court decided
that this was an infringement, and I suspect that most of you would,
also, if you were the originating company.  How different is this from
what FSF is doing?

If all software were free, we would see very little software becoming
available: look at any country without copyright laws. FSF's goals are
only obtainable when somebody else is footing the bill for the original
development. Also, they are only obtainable when programs are *not*
free (but rather are controlled by liscencing).  RMS has fallen into
the same trap as many software pirates do: I can copy it for $5,
so why should I spend $50 to buy it?  The problem is the *first* time
you copy it it costs $50,000.  If it costs me 5000 hours to port an
OS to another machine, and the first time I give it to somebody,
I will never get any more money for it, who would pay me $50,000 for
my time? 
		      More humble opinions from and only from
		      -- Darren

-- 
--- Darren New --- Grad Student --- CIS --- Univ. of Delaware ---
----- Network Protocols, Graphics, Programming Languages, 
      Formal Description Techniques (esp. Estelle), Coffee, Amigas -----
              =+=+=+ Let GROPE be an N-tuple where ... +=+=+=