🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <MCLAY.91Jan27011004@thud.cme.nist.gov> mclay@cme.nist.gov (Michael Mclay) writes:
>Please reread the following excerpt of a posting concerning your
>attempts to impose morality on others.  While I like many of the
>FSF products, I absolutely disagree with your distribution tactics.

> [ quoted excerpt deleted ]

If you don't agree with our distribution policies, instead of complaining
about it why don't you write some software of your own and distribute it
under the policies that you would like to see?  That's what we did; we
didn't waste our time asking proprietary software houses to please give
us copies of their stuff for free.

>If you truely want your software to be free, then distribute it as X
>Windows and InterViews are distributed.  We use the public domain
>version of both these tools, however, organizations that aren't in the
>software business are able to buy, for less than it would cost them to
>do the work themselves, a compiled and tested version of X Windows
>from DEC, Sun, IBM, HP and others.  The programers who worked on X
>Windows or InterViews cannot feel cheated when one of these companies
>sells a copy of X Windows for $500 or $1000.  They wanted their code
>to be used by other and put it in the public domain so that this would
>be possible.

"free" is one of those ambiguous words that can mean too many things.

Since you're such a fan of Adam Smith, you should realize that there
is no such thing as a free lunch.  If we gave our software away in
the way that you advocate, and you subsequently made a proprietary
modification and sold it for lots of $$$, then we would be giving you
a free lunch at our (and our user community's) expense.

>In order for some of the public to be able to use it,
>however, more work was required.  This extra work must be paid for and
>that is why the $500 or $1000 was spent.  There was no coersion
>involved.  See Adam Smith for details on how this works:-)

Certainly the extra work must be payed for.  Suppose it costs $200,000
to do the extra work.  Then you charge $500 or $1000 for each copy until
you get your $200,000, plus a fair profit, back.  And then you *keep*
charging $500 or $1000, because you've got the user community over a
barrel--they have no alternative except to get the software from you.
That's coercion in my book.

Another thing you are conveniently overlooking is that *our* work must
be payed for, and you seem to have forgotten that there are more ways
to pay for something than just money.  For example, payment in kind:
people make improvements in our software, and send them back to us.
This could be considered payment, because we benefit, and so does our
user community.  (Actually, we go to considerable effort to incorporate
other people's improvements, some of which are actually of no use to
us but might help someone in our user community.  So we don't always
benefit directly, but we hope someone does.)

>Why not have the FSF copyright read as follows:
>
>  I don't believe software should cost money.

This is sheer nonsense; software obviously doesn't come into existence in
a vacuum.  If you think that's what we believe, then please think again.

We don't believe that software should be used as a means of coercing others.
And we force nobody to make modifications of our software and give them to
us; but we forbid anybody to use our software as part of a means of coercing
others.

>  You can use what I wrote
>  for free.  If you agree with me you will do the same.  If you don't I
>  wish you well.  Please be kind enough to tell others that I wrote this
>  code or parts of the code.


>Anything more than that is going to restrict the distribution of the
>FSF software.  If this were not true then at least one of the above
>mentioned companies would have started distributing FSF software along
>with their own.  

Certainly our terms restrict the distribution of our software.  They
prevent people who want to get a free lunch at others' expense from
using our software as part of their schemes.  We have no interest in
supporting the efforts of such people, and shed no tears when they
complain that they cannot take advantage of us.

>The Soviets have finally admitted that Marx was wrong and Adam Smith
>was right.  FSF should do the same.

If you think that our policies have anything whatever to do with either
Karl Marx or Adam Smith, then I'd like to know what you've been smoking.

>It's ok to give the source code
>away or sell the tapes for $195 each, just don't require that everyone
>do the same.  That only causes those who need additional support to
>not be able to use the products at all.

That is blatantly untrue.  The existence of Cygnus support provides a
direct counterexample.  And you always have the option of hiring someone
directly to make the changes you need, an option that you do not have
in the case of proprietary software without source code.

You sound like one of many who just wants to use our software, and
doesn't give a damn about whether or not there is a large body of
freely distributable software, as long as you can get something
you can use *now*.  You can criticize us all you like, but our
priorities are not the same as yours, nor is there any particular
reason they should be.  Our current policy seems to be fulfilling
our goals; we would change it if it wasn't.
Mike Haertel <mike@stolaf.edu>
"He's a tie with the ambition to become a full-blown suit." -- Jon Westbrock