🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <kojrc0INNppa@exodus.Eng.Sun.COM> chased@rbbb.Eng.Sun.COM (David Chase) writes:
>In article <1223@borax.kbss.bt.co.uk> dtynan@borax.kbss.bt.co.uk (Dermot Tynan) writes:
>>mathew@mantis.co.uk (Lieutenant 030) writes:
>>> 
>>Get a life!  I challenge you to call up Ms. Programmer at Lotus Inc,
>>and discuss with her the finer points of lotus.c, and see where it gets
>>you, at any price!  
>
>This is not at all true.  
Well, its not true about Sun. And that is part of what makes Sun a special
place.

> Remember that all these non-free companies
>exist to make money -- there's always some price that will do the job.
Except that frequently this price isn't particularly clear(i.e. you
might have to buy the company to get it done). Also, companies do
stupid things from time to time. That's why companies like Sun trounce
their competition and grow when they are up against established
competitors.

Now, the tendency for companies to refuse to sell source is is changing 
and I think this change is a good thing.

Still, we have to remember that companies are bound by rules of fidiciary
responsibility. This means that the officers of a company can be 
legally _punished_ if they fail to try to earn the maximum profit legally
possible-i.e Bill Gate could be thrown into jail if he gave away the source
code to Windows, OS/2, MS-DOS etc tomorrow. To say he is a criminal for not
giving away software is a bit unempathic to say the least.
The laws around fiduciary responsibility are part of the reason why
big corporate types are a bit cautious around doing things that could be
construed as giving away the store. It's guys like Scott  McNealy that
are broadening the conception of what is acceptable corporate 
behavior. 

>If, for example, you wanted to know all about the internals of Sun's
>software and and called me on the phone, I'd have to refer you to some
>higher-ups, but those people would almost certainly be willing to give
>me permission to talk to you, provided that you paid the price that
>they quote.  You might not like the price, but (just like people who
>don't like the use of the word "free" or the conditions imposed on
>derived works by the GPL), that's your choice.
>
>By the way, I've got no gripe with the FSF's use of the word free, nor
>do I object to the conditions imposed by the license.  This makes much
>of the GNU software inaccessible to me at work, but (as they say)
>that's my choice -- just as I obey the GNU copyleft, I also obey the
>little piece of paper that I signed when I came to work here.

The real question is, if we assume that we are heading towards a culture
of abundance, sharing and peace and that the development and sharing of
certain technologies is the best way to move us in this direction, what
is the best way to get there from here? The GPL has been a noble
experiment-that doesn't mean it is the final world on the subject.

Still, I personally feel a real debt to RMS and the folks in the GNU
project even though Emacs isn't my editor of choice and none of my clients 
want to use GNU Code  largely because they're afraid of the GPL and its lack
of a way to buy yourself out of some of the conditions. I've learned
a lot by looking at the code and find the example of how RMS has built up
the FSF to be quite inspiring. 


Note: I do not speak for Sun Microsystems