🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> On 3 Jan 93 04:18:44 GMT, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael
>>>>> Zeleny) (MZ henceforth) said:

MZ> In article <9301021752.AA25483@life.ai.mit.edu> tower@ai.mit.edu
MZ> (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:

MZ> LT:
>FSF's employees are not slaves though.  They are all working for FSF
>of their own free will.

MZ> Sure they do.  And some slaves sold themselves into slavery of
MZ> their own free will.  Like I say, I have no idea whether the above
MZ> figure includes overhead, as it ought to; but regardless of that,
MZ> the implied maximum figure is way below par for professional work,
MZ> particularly when Stallman's original penny-pinching rationale of
MZ> "they have to show that they are doing it for the idea" no longer
MZ> applies as FSF is looking more and more like a conventional
MZ> software company.

For someone who has accused many other posters of petty rhetorical
tricks, the paragraph above is pretty rich. 

For a start, once sold into slavery, (whether that decision was one's
own or not), a person no longer has the freedom that is guaranteed to
all adults by law. The difference here is that the people working at
the FDF continue to do so by their own free choice as well. They are
not bound as a slave would be. 

The FSF is like a conventional software company? "More and more like"
even? Well, let's see now, they do charge people money for a service
they provide, (even if they misleadingly call it a distribution fee; I
agree with Michael that it is a poor term), but there are not many
software companies out there that have the source for their products
available at no cost at ftp sites around the world. (Excluding the
costs, if you want to be pedantic, inherent in the medium of
transmission). What's more anybody is _free_ (there is that evil word
again), to *use* the provided products without any restrictions on
their use. Pick some 'conventional software companies', do they do
this? Does Microsoft have the source for Windows available for ftp at
their sites? Is Microsoft perhaps not a conventional software company?

If I may be allowed a rhetorical flourish of my own: 
      pull the other one!

If the FSF feels that it is appropriate to establish legal restrictions
on the potential future redistribution of the software to ensure that
people remain free to use it, that is their privilege as owners of the
software. 

Perhaps this overly caustic debate would subside if the term
distribution fee was replaced by price?

Michael.

mnorrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."