Article View: gnu.misc.discuss
Article #72312Re: On the multiple definitions of "free"
From: From A to B
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 14:24
Date: Thu, 27 Feb 1992 14:24
57 lines
3173 bytes
3173 bytes
kyle@uunet.uu.net (Kyle Jones) writes: > > No, the FSF approach is #1, just like the hoarders' approach. The hoarder > > say "You can't un-hoard our software or we'll set our lawyers on you." > > The FSF say "You can't hoard our software or we'll set our lawyers on you. > > How in the world can you equate this with "pass laws to make them > do things your way"?? In this case suitable laws already exist; the principle's the same, whether you have to get the law passed before you can use it or whether someone else has had it done for you. Legal coercion. > > If the FSF is really "letting hoarders do things their way", then one migh > > just as well argue that the hoarders are "letting the FSF do things their > > way". And I don't think you'd agree with that. > > Oh yes I would! Right up to the point where they start sueing > for software patent and interface copyright infringement. Well, I think that "letting the FSF do things their way" would mean letting them distribute the software they have the way they want to distribute it. I've been led to believe that the original objection to commercial software distribution which RMS had was that he was not allowed to give copies of programs he had to other people, and was not allowed to play with the source code. The contrasting situation would be one where he was allowed to give such software (not written by him) away -- that's the "do things his way" I'm talking about. So commercial software companies generally don't let the FSF do things the FSF's way, BUT the FSF don't let commercial companies do things the commercial companies' way. The FSF complain about not being able to give away software, but they make damn sure the commercial companies will have reason to complain about not being able to "hoard" software. Or more concisely: They're both as bad as each other. That's the point I'm making. > Sorry, but letting them hoard free software is helping them. It's a pretty strange sort of "helping". I suppose if I allow a friend to recover from illness, I'm helping him to get well... Who's using an unusual language now? mathew [ Perhaps "If copyright did not exist, it would be necessary for the FSF to invent it"... ] -- 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
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<cJ5sgB19w164w@mantis.co.uk>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathewReferences:
<1992Feb24.225447.323@uunet.uu.net>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 1025b4,c1e13a8fc31fc719 X-Google-Attributes: gid1025b4,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 1992-02-27 14:04:13 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!mcsun!uknet!slxsys!ibmpcug!mantis!mathew From: mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss Subject: Re: On the multiple definitions of "free" Message-ID: <cJ5sgB19w164w@mantis.co.uk> Date: 27 Feb 92 14:24:23 GMT References: <1992Feb24.225447.323@uunet.uu.net> Distribution: world,public Organization: Mantis Consultants, Cambridge. UK. Lines: 57