[ILUG-BOM] my take on todays seminar < Ur view is right - But not entirely right >

[Pradeep Vasudev]

> I make a living installing GNU/Linux and *BSD based mail and firewall
boxen.
> I provide a service, people pay me. Now if by some divine intervention, my
> skills as a programmer were to get a really big boost and I was able to
> create software that was truly wonderful and useful, sure I'd like to give
> it away. GPL it even. But wait... I need to pay the phone bill, the rent,
> the electricity, the <insert favourite intoxicant> etc.
Wake up buddy, Red Hat makes money using Free software, Cygnus made money
using free software. In fact, till the Microsoft came along even IBM, DEC
and all the other major comp companies made money with free software.
>
> So I sell it. I'm sure I'd need some sort of license to release it.
> Realistically, it simply MUST have some restrictions on what the user can
do
> with it. If he's able to legally just give it to another friend, I don't
> make money. So no rent, no phone, no power, no intoxicants. I choose to
make
> a living providing a service, other choose to do it by selling software.
RMS view does not prohibit you from making money selling software, even he
(or rather the FSF) used to make money selling tapes of emacs etc, in the
days before the Net. But the GPL simply forbids you from preventing others
from reselling the software. Additionally, the GPL forces you to provide all
necessary details that may be required by the customer to customize the
software you provided to suit your needs. Is that too much to ask?


> Simplistic, yes, and yes, I understand that there are larger issues
involved
> (e-patents, not being able to modify and distribute etc. etc.)
>
> Microsoft and Adobe aren't the only software companies on the planet.
Sure,
> they restrict your freedoms with their licenses, charge you exorbitantly
> etc., but I'm sure there are non-free software companies out there that do
> some decent bits of coding and sell it, without excessive restrictions in
> their licenses. I have definitely come across software that I would not
mind
> paying for. There must be companies walking the middle path somewhere.
I know from many companies like that, but for any one company like that
there are 10 that behave like MS or Adobe. WTF, all DB companies now
disallow the publishing of benchmarks on thier software. Among software
companies, there is a continual race to reach the bottom of the ethical pit
of this business. And because of apologists like you, they get away with it!

>
> Another point, and it isn't necessarily here in any kind of sequence, is
> that IMHO, RMS's speech was political and social, much more than
technical,
> or about GNU/Linux. He's an experienced hacker with roots in academia,
he has never been shy about the political nature of his movement. You want
technical, go somewhere else, you want economic go to ESR, you want social,
go to RMS.

> Not too many people would be willing to make those sacrifices and even if
> they are willing, might not be in a position to do so.
He does not ask anyone to. He simply says that it is the duty of the
software business to serve its customers and give them a fair deal. is that
wrong to ask. RMS does not in the least mind people making billions as long
as they are ethically made.

>
> RMS's philosophy is definitely perfect for one person - RMS. It works for
> him. He makes money. He's probably happy with life. Good Thing(TM).
>
He makes money but uses it to advance the cause of the software programmer
and customer. He does not spend it on himself. Please note that RMS is a
better programmer than even Gosling, and Gosling is regarded as the maker of
Java. If RMS wanted he could have made millions with far less effort. He
chose not to, and think him for it, else, you would be busy paying a few
hundred dollars per month to use the MSN network (the internet was based on
free software, ok BSD software, still!), paying a few thousand dollars to
use MS Windows and still be thanking MS and their likes for it!

> The same philosophy doesn't exactly work for me. I'm sure there are others
> it doesn't work for. And incase you're wondering, I swing the BSD way
these
> days.

Doesn't the BSD group feel a little cheesed off, after MS took thier TCP/IP
code and without so much as a by-you-leave, used it for Windows and did not
even bother to mention the fact anywere?

>
> <disclaimer>
> Mostly opinionated spewing, personal stuff. Realistic points of view
> invited.
> </diclaimer>
sorry about the invectives, i read the disclaimer late, next time, put it on
the top of the spiel, not at the end.
Regards
Pradeep