Xref: utzoo gnu.misc.discuss:659 alt.religion.computers:1234
Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!mcnc!uvaarpa!murdoch!bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU!gl8f
From: gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,alt.religion.computers
Subject: Re: Making $$$ from software - GNU vs the world
Message-ID: <1989Dec22.052935.5136@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU>
Date: 22 Dec 89 05:29:35 GMT
References: <8322@stiatl.UUCP>
Sender: news@murdoch.acc.Virginia.EDU
Reply-To: gl8f@bessel.acc.Virginia.EDU (Greg Lindahl)
Organization: Dept. of Astronomy, University of Virginia
Lines: 62
Ireallyam: gl8f

In article <8322@stiatl.UUCP> meo@stiatl.UUCP (Miles O'Neal) writes:

> This whole discussion began around Richard Stallman's (apparent)
> belief that selling software is immoral, not around whether I should
> use GNU or what I should get from/give to GNU/anyone else. 

Well, if I may summarize, this 'discussion' has had lots of subparts.

1. RMS is out to make it illegal to sell software, therefore we must
   oppose him at every turn or the world will end.

   This argument falls apart if you use an analogy to vegetarians.
   None of its proponents has volunteered to ask RMS if he's really
   out to destroy the world as we know it. Nothing in the manifesto
   says anything other than "Here's what we think the world should
   be, and here's how we are going help it become that way by
   writing software and making it 'free'."

2. The Gnu Public License (GPL) is a virus designed to trick innocent
   people into giving their code away.

   Only a few GNU utilities could bind a user this way. And similar
   commercial products have licenses with conditions also. You must
   ALWAYS check before you go sell someone's compiled code or library.
   I'm not sure which idiots could possibly be tricked.

3. FSF isn't the best way to give your code away, because everyone cannot
   use the resulting code.

   Yes, if you want to not give out your source, for whatever reason,
   FSF will not save you from re-inventing the wheel. However, there
   is no reason why FSF should give their hard work away with no
   restrictions. I'm happy that they give it away at all.

   On the other hand, I still place some code into the public domain.
   This is because it is sufficiently trivial that I do not care if
   someone tries to sell it.

4. The FSF will never amount to anything, because nobody wants to write
   general interest free software.

   I suppose Peter will be proven wrong when the GNU Spreadsheet is
   released.

To stave off the mounds of flames I see coming, this is just my view
of the discussions so far, and my comments. Your mileage will vary.

Finally one last comment on the referenced article:

>Coupled with other remarks I have seen of Richard Stallman's, it seems
>that the idea is to FORCE software sharing, by one means or another. Very
>different thing.

It's 100% ok for RMS to FORCE people to share RMS' code. It's his. He
wrote it. You don't have to agree, or use it.

I wonder how sales of 3rd part Unix C and C++ compilers have been
doing since gcc and G++ came out? I hope the FSF have convinced a lot
of people that 'free' software can be good for them.

------
Greg Lindahl