Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!bonnie.concordia.ca!thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu!snorkelwacker.mit.edu!think.com!spool.mu.edu!uwm.edu!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod
From: zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean)
Newsgroups: comp.misc
Subject: Re: rms says...
Summary: Source Licensing, not cost
Message-ID: <1727@madnix.UUCP>
Date: 5 Feb 91 13:07:49 GMT
References: <21327@yunexus.YorkU.CA> <4607@lib.tmc.edu> <1682@digi.lonestar.org> <43377@nigel.ee.udel.edu>
Organization: MADNIX, operated by: ARP Software  Madison WI
Lines: 40


In Article <43377@nigel.ee.udel.edu>, new@ee.udel.edu (Darren New) writes:
 
>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.
 
   This is not why the FSF exists, it's just a side-effect.
 
   Keep in mind that Stallman's major beef with the commercial
vendors has to do with availability of source licenses, not cost.
The commercial vendors could make the FSF obsolete by making
source licenses available for ALL software, at prices end-users
could afford-- subject to non-disclosure, of course, but allowing
exchange among other licensees. The number of end-users who would
know what to do with a source license may be a minority, but they
are Stallman's target audience. How many non-programmers have
even heard of the FSF?
 
   When source licenses are readily available to end-users, you
have to ask: What is the value of the improvements contributed by
users? The "commercial" view is that their value is so low that
users can do without them-- in other words, if you need to alter
the program to meet local needs, tough luck, you're a minority so
you don't count (thus creating a constituency for the FSF).
 
   The GPL takes the opposite approach: contributed improvements
are so valuable that the initial development is relatively
unimportant-- any deficiency can be fixed, eventually. The GPL is
extreme because the alternative is also extreme. An intermediate
approach would be messy and complicated, but as long as *either*
extreme exists, the other will exist to counteract it. Thus, the
balance of nature is preserved :-).
 
==================
zaphod@madnix.UUCP (Ron Bean)
{harvard|rutgers|ucbvax}!uwvax!astroatc!nicmad!madnix!zaphod
Secrecy Is Theft