🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <1989Oct19.140255.834@odi.com>, benson@odi (Benson I. Margulies) writes:
>So i'll make my semi-usual two points and go back to work:
>
>1) In The Real World, the apparent complexity of the copyleft coupled
>with the unstable state of copyright law makes FSF software
>practically unusuable for many companies, whatever their sentiments
>about "free" software. So if you really want it to be usuable, 
>go public domain. 

I agree with the sentiments here, though I would contend the phrase
"practically unusable" and claim it is a failure of imagination of "many
companies" (or of our political so-called leadership) rather than a logical
flaw of the FSF's thinking that contributes to "the unstable state of copyright
law".  What is the law supposed to be doing here?  RMS has a position, and,
however muddily it may be expressed, this position is apparently understood
well enough by a large group of people so that they disagree vociferiously with
it.  What are the alternatives, and where do software and chips fit into this
scheme?  Me, I'd like a world without look and feel suits, without copy
protection, without hunger ...

But, what can I reasonably expect to get, and how?  Ignoring FSF may help, but
I'm more inclined to help them.  Working for computer manufacturers, as is my
practice, means that I have to carefully separate my time so that I don't
simultaneously violate FSF's liscense and my commpany's.  Aahh, well, maybe
I'll try to free the odd political prisoner instead...

>2) The FSF isn't about making a publicly available pool of software.
>Its about changing the economy of software development to conform to a
>never-existent golden age that RMS thinks existed at the MIT AI lab.

This is (to my mind) clearly a fact combined with an opiinion.  I may or may
not agree with the opinion (I do), but plenty of people whose opinion I respect
disagree with me (which is why I called it an opinion in the first place).  My
feeling is that the FSF is about making a a publicly available and
unrestrictable pool of software.  The unrestrictable part sticks in the craws
of many in the software-selling business.

>I can also imagine that some number of people out there are sincere
>socialists, believing in collective ownership of everything,
>especially software.
>
>But if you, the reader of this message, aren't in one of those categories,
>you should read RMS's political writings and ask yourself whether the
>convienience of "free" software today is worth the chains of economic
>dependence tomorrow.

Or whether you must believe in collective ownership of everything to use GNU software.
Or whether RMS's writings imply chains of economic dependence tomorrow.  
Or whether you have to sign up for all of his beliefs to use GNU software.
Or whether what he wants is a bad thing.

>
>-- 
>Benson I. Margulies