🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9003@optima.cs.arizona.edu>, cjeffery@optima.UUCP (Clinton Jeffery) writes...

>>   [ Editorial comment:  earlier in the interview it was mentioned 
>>     that Stallman himself was paid less than $10,000 for writing 
>>     software last year.  This is an alternative way to get
>>     a paycheck as a programmer?  ]
>Stallman earns it in what...7 weeks a year, and spends the rest of his
>time doing what he wants.  Not everyone can say that.  Anyhow, this is his
>personal choice, and only a sour apple would criticize such philanthropy.

But who is the sour apple?  I quoted RMS fairly, with plenty of context,
from a friendly interview in which he was spoon-fed questions that gave
him the opportunity to present his case.  In that interview he used the
existence of paid staff at the FSF as proof that one does not have to
"restrict copying" to get paid to write software.  

This is not unlike arguing that the existence of a paid position
at a food co-op proves that no one needs to work for a supermarket.
It reflects a world view that is very far from the mainstream,
one that is either naive or deliberately socialist (or both).

If my intent had been to do the kind of hatchet job that Mr. Jeffery
did with my article, I could have written it much more quickly.

No one criticized Stallman's philanthropy.

In fact, most of us are involved in _emulating_ it on some level;
otherwise we wouldn't have an interest in this topic.  And _all_ of 
us have benefitted from his efforts, both from his programming 
contributions but also from the concept of the GNU public license.

For circumstances in which people want to release ideas to the public
-- and ensure that it _stays_ public -- there is probably no better
framework for accomplishing this than the GPL.

This does not mean that all of Stallman's ideas are correct,
and it doesn't mean that _all_ software should be distributed 
under such an arrangement.  

The same right of ownership of intellectual property that makes 
"CopyLeft" possible also gives companies the right to sell it
and restrict the right to copy it.

You can't control what you don't own.  You can't have it both ways.

-- Bill (johnston@minnie.me.udel.edu)