🚀 go-pugleaf

carlton@husc8.harvard.edu (david carlton) writes:
> In article <eZ9FgB20w164w@mantis.co.uk>, mathew@mantis.co.uk (From A to B) wr
> > What I'm suggesting above is #2. If I'd been more ambitious, I would 
> > have advocated #3.
> 
> I'm not sure what "above" is - the only things that look like they
> could be relevant are contained in articles that have expired here -
> but your "TFSF" sounds a lot more like #3 to me than #2, or at least
> it would be if your goal is to promote free software.

Yes.  I agree.  I was giving the "TFSF" angle a rest while discussion occurs
by mail.

> (I'm not sure what your goal is, and won't speculate.)

I have several goals in mind:

1. Encourage Truly Free software.

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 :-)

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." :-)

4. Tap funding which the FSF can't tap because of its restrictions and
   conditions. 

>                                            You would certainly be
> giving assistance to people who wish to get rid of competing free
> software if you gave them software for them to sell, after all.

Not active assistance.  It would make software like air; there's nothing
to stop you grabbing free air and selling it, but who would buy your air
when you can get free air?  If I don't keep my ferns sealed in an airtight
case, am I giving assistance to evil air hoarders?

[ I recommend the script of Ben Elton's play "Gasping".  The difference
  between the FSF and my position might be summed up by saying that I think
  "Gasping" could only ever be fiction. ]

If commercial software developers add enough value to the free software
to make it worth the money, people will pay the money.  Otherwise they won't.
They'll use the free version, and maybe upgrade it to do what the "hoarded"
version does.

So long as users know what they're buying (which is where the "TFSF" "license"
comes in) there's no problem, and you don't need to restrict what people
can do with the code.  If what someone does is right, he'll profit from
it.  If it's not, he won't.

This, of course, assumes no software patents and user-interface copyrights.
I'm entirely in agreement with the LPF, although again I'd be willing to
compromise at (say) patents and UI copyrights with a short (2 year or so)
duration.


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