🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3884E1FD.ADCCB5F5@quiotix.com>,
Jeffrey B. Siegal <jbs@quiotix.com> wrote:
>Barry Margolin wrote:
>> If you think about the goal of the FSF, this point of view is
>> understandable.  The purpose is to increase the amount of free software
>> available to end users.
>
>Another explicit purpose of Free Software and the GPL is to protect the right
>people have to share software, and generally to shift the focus of software
>development away from restricting copying and distribution.  What difference
>does it make if the right to share is blocked by a software license or an
>employment agreement/relationship?  None at all.

I think RMS's emphasis in this regard is on software that people obtain for
themselves -- they should be able to share it with their friends.  If a
company obtains software on behalf of the employee, it's not really his to
share.

RMS is also concerned with users being able to customize their software.
He may have been making an assumption that within an organization,
employees would normally be able to get source to the local modifications,
and further derive from them -- i.e. companies would be less secretive with
their employees than with customers.  I'm sure there are many companies
that don't fit this model, but often if someone can demonstrate a need for
in-house source, they can get it.

-- 
Barry Margolin, barmar@bbnplanet.com
GTE Internetworking, Powered by BBN, Burlington, MA
*** DON'T SEND TECHNICAL QUESTIONS DIRECTLY TO ME, post them to newsgroups.
Please DON'T copy followups to me -- I'll assume it wasn't posted to the group.