🚀 go-pugleaf

In <1992Jan15.054742.16385@raven.alaska.edu> floyd@hayes.ims.alaska.edu (Floyd 
Davidson) writes:
> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes:
> >I'm saying that people are entirely free to restrict stuff from my use or
> >not, as they like.
> 
> Ok.
> 
> >However, if they allow me to use something
> 
> Whoa.  They are NOT. They are restricting it from your use.  You agreed
> above that they can and should be able to.  They did.

OK, so why should I be so excited about the GNU project?  I'm willing to
give away programs I have written for free.  Yet I'm not allowed to use
GNU software if I'm going to do so.  That makes it no better than commercially
licensed software from a free software point of view.

> >with some of my own code, *I* would like to be able to make
> >the decision about whether *my* code should be restricted or not.  
> >They can choose whether *their* code is restricted or not.
> 
> FSF is not making any decisions about your code, you are.  FSF
> seems to have made only a decision about their code:  They are
> restricting theirs from you (because you restrict yours from me)...

No, they are restricting theirs from me because I *DON'T* restrict mine
from you.  They're saying that even if I give away my work for free, I can't
include GNU code.

> >If I take some of my code and some GNU code
> >and build a program, the GPL tells me that *my* code suddenly has to 
> >be under the GPL. This is what I object to. If all it said was that 
> >the GNU code had to stay under the GPL, that would be fine.
> 
> You are objecting to them restricting their code from you!

Yes.  They're saying "Either the code you write has to be under the GPL,
or you're not allowed to use our code.  Even if you're giving your code
away for free."

>                                They don't seem to want you using their
> code because of your action reference sharing/non-sharing!

No, I'm perfectly willing to share my code freely, so that isn't the reason.

> >I'm also pointing out that truly free software is more useful to more people
> >than GNU software, and that it's misleading to call GNU software "free".
> 
> Ok.  *THIS* is the significant subject for debate.  I disagree with
> your conclusions.  I admire your goal though, because as I read
> it, in spite of all the noise, you are saying that you agree with
> FSF goals but disagree with their policy (how to achieve the goals).

No, I don't really agree with the goals either.  The FSF's goal is to eliminate
commercial software distribution.  Mine is to provide an alternative, compete
by being better, and allow people to choose.

> mathew@mantis.co.uk (en font terrible) writes in a different article:
> >nazgul@alphalpha.com (Kee Hinckley) writes:
> >> But if you believe that all software should be free, then by all means stick
> >> to the GPL - it's definitely the way to go.
> >
> >I dispute this.  If you think all software should be free, the best thing
> 
> Hmmm...  But haven't you previously stated that you think *some*
> software (specifically some that you write) should be restricted?

I think some software has to be restricted if it is to exist, since there
is no other viable way of recouping the development costs.  I was particularly
thinking of leisure software, which is not something I've written recently.

> There is a big difference between a philosophy of *ALL* software
> and *some* software.  If *everyone* used the GPL (or went PD or
> whatever), then all software would be free.  Obviously it is not
> realistic to think that is going to happen.

So you think the FSF are not realistic?

> I don't agree.  Creation of totally PD, free, whatever, software
> by FSF would never cause one person such as you or me, to share
> anything that we would not have otherwise.

No?  Why not?  Haven't you ever heard of "leading by example"?  My 'conversion'
to the cause of truly free software was purely a result of my being impressed
by some wonderful truly free software packages.

>                                                The GPL may actually
> put you and I in a bind someday where we might even share something
> that we would not have without the GPL. (It certainly already has
> with me, and may have with you.)

No.  I'll just get around it.  (I'm not saying how.)  Or I'll just not use
GNU code.

> >with restrictive copyrights and licenses like the GPL, preventing it from
> >being "free" in any conventional sense.
> 
> I don't agree with two things here.  What I understand you to be
> saying is that you do not think FSF policy is an effective way to
> encourage free software.

Well, it might encourage free software, but only as a reaction to 
GPL-encumbered software.

> The second point of disagreement is that you are arguing that FSF
> policy should be a match for *your* talents and resources instead
> of *theirs*.  If you want to go about it your way, fine.  Do it.
> Why all the noise because they have a different way.  Perhaps
> comparing the effect that RMS has had with his policy to the
> effect that you have had with yours is a way to resolve which is
> more effective.  How much effect have you had on the world with
> your policy??  And you want FSF to switch from theirs to yours???

This is the old "if you can't do better, you shouldn't criticise" cliche.
It's completely bogus.  Just because I can't play the violin doesn't mean
I can't criticise Nigel Kennedy, and just because I haven't achieved world
fame from encouraging non-commercial software doesn't mean I can't 
criticise the FSF.

As it happens, the more whining I hear from FSF supporters, the more inclined
I am to start a Truly Free Software Foundation.


mathew

-- 
Just another would-be Mac owner put off by Apple's monopolistic practices / If
you know where I can buy the CD "In Mysterious Ways" by John Foxx, please send
me email / Message for Kodak: Bring back Dan Bredy! / My PGP RSA public key is
available on request / Desperately seeking CD of "U2" by Negativland / 4 lines