🚀 go-pugleaf

rwm@atronx.OCUnix.On.Ca (Russell McOrmond) writes:
> mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) writes:
> >I have several goals in mind:
> >1. Encourage Truly Free software.
> 
> What you seemed to describe in Email is nothing unlike Public Domain where no
> restrictions exist on the origional code but any restriction can be made
> of derivative works.

Thank you.  That's what I'm aiming for.

>  You seemed to question why I would even WANT to make su
> that derivative works were an issue, and why I would want to make 
> sure they were kept free.

Absolutely.  Look at GNU Emacs.  Let's suppose it was under the hypothetical
TFSF license, and let's suppose someone came along and "hoarded" it.  Would
anyone buy the hoarded version?  Not if they knew they could get the free
version, unless they were part of a bureaucracy that refused to trust free
software.  Maybe if they didn't know about the free version they'd buy
the hoarded one -- but with the TFSF license, hopefully it wouldn't be too
long until they found out, at which point they might be a little bit peeved.

Of course, if the hoarder had enhanced TFSF Emacs a lot, enough to make
it worth paying money and worth putting up with not getting freely-
redistributable source, then people might buy the commercial version and
be happy.

So basically hoarders would only be able to charge as much as the users
thought was fair for the work the hoarders had put in.

Sounds good to me.

The next stage is to consider the logistics of the situation.  Your 
hypothetical hoarder has to keep updating the software to fix bugs, whereas
the users of the free version can fix bugs themselves.  The hoarder has
to spend money doing bug-fixing and improving, whereas the users of the free 
version can assist each other.

Basically, for something like Emacs, I can't see how the hoarder can win.

So, no change from the GPL there, except perhaps in the short term as a
few hoarders are bound to try it.

The changes come when you consider specialist applications, commercial systems
making use of free code, funding, and so on.

> >2. Aim higher than the FSF; forget C and UNIX-emulation, go straight for
> >   C++ and an object-oriented lightweight OS with a lightweight GUI (*not*
> >   X.)  Give the IBM/Apple evil empire a run for their money :-)
> 
>   In a world where we are trying to communicate more and more with each
> other, you wish to build your own incompatable system.

You don't have to duplicate UNIX in order to communicate with UNIX.  I'm
not sure whether UNIX will amount to anything or not.  It's touch-and-go
at the moment.  We've learnt a lot about OS design since the days of UNIX,
and hardware design has come a long way.  Maybe it's time to go back to
the drawing board.

To give a trivial example, any new OS really ought to use a capability-based
protection system rather than a coarse-grained system of access lists and
rwx bits.

> >3. Persuade people that there aren't just two alternatives.  I suspect that
> >   many people who use the GPL on their code do so not because they agree
> >   with the FSF's objectives, but because it's there.  Or as was explained
> >   in "Yes, Minister": "We must do something, this is something, therefore
> >   we must do this." :-)
> 
>   You would probably be surprised at the number of people that agree with
> the Goals of the FSF.

I doubt it.  Anyone who writes nothing will agree with the goals of the
FSF out of sheer self-interest.

> >4. Tap funding which the FSF can't tap because of its restrictions and
> >   conditions. 
> 
>    What kind of resources would your (IMHO misnamed) TFSF have access to 
> that the FSF would not?  Resources that would likely be going towards their
> own gains and actually USING you in the process.

Hardly.  For example, take the situation a couple of years ago where everyone
suddenly needed an X.400 mail system.  Instead of DEC, HP, DG, IBM and all
the others all going off and doing their own thing, they could have simply
donated some money to the TFSF (had it been around).  The TFSF could have
developed the X.400 mail system and released it.  It would have been in
the big companies' interests to do this, because it would save them money
and they would know that they would be able to do what they liked with
the resulting free code.  It would be in the TFSF's interests (and in the
interest of free software) because we would have ended up with a free
X.400 mail system.

Doing business with "hoarders" doesn't have to be unpleasant.  Sometimes
everybody wins.


mathew

-- 
Hail Eris! / "Our whole economy's based on fear and death; how long can we get
away with this?" --- Jello Biafra / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! /
PGP RSA public key available on request / Desperately seeking Negativland's U2
CD / Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices