🚀 go-pugleaf

   Date: 14 Aug 90 06:57:19 GMT
   From: david@WUBIOS.WUSTL.EDU (David J. Camp)

First, I think I should point out a couple of relationships:
FSF -- a non-profit organisation dedicated to freeing software.
GNU -- One (and so far the only) project of the FSF.
LPF -- a political action committee designed to fight look'n'feel
       copyrights and software patents.  LPF has no position on any
       other issue, not even free software.

Sometimes people get the different things confused, because many
of teh same people are involved in both.

   [some questions about the Manifesto, from memory b/c it's hard to find]

   1)  Do the FSF and rms still subscribe to that theory?

It's hard to say that an organisation subscribes to a theory or
manifesto, but rms certainly does.  I would suspect that almost
everyone who works for the FSF agrees with its thrust.

   2)  In particular, do they intend to pursue changes in the copyright
       laws to make all software free?

It would be within the purview of the FSF, but they are busy with the
GNU project.  I could imagine that they might move to doing such
things once GNU becomes mature.  But they're a non-profit
organisation, and are therefore not permitted to lobby Congress.

   I think it is the leftist intentions expressed in the GNU Manifesto that
   turn many people off of the GNU concept.  I think few can object to the
   existance and application of the General Public License, especially if
   its application is voluntary.

Apart from the stuff at the end about a "Software Tax" I don't see
anything particularly leftist about it.  In fact, rather the reverse
is true.  Rather than companies looking after their alleged assets
themselves, they rely on a massive tax subsidy to increase their
profits.  This subsidy is twofold: direct, as in all the taxes devoted
to enforcing and maintaining the copyright law, and indirect, as in
the revenue which could be devoted to useful investment and but is
instead transferred to software companies as windfall profits.

   When we try to apply the GNU concepts to the rest of the industry, we
   may experience a serious backlash.  Most programmers are protective of
   their handiwork, and would object to an attempt to prevent them from
   charging as much as the market will bear.

You may get a backlash from the subsidised producers, but as consumers
begin to feel ripped off the lash could swing the other way.  Don't
forget that what killed the big monopolies of the 1890s and the
unregulated securities markets of the 20's was consumer objections to
what JP Morgan called their "ability to literally print money."

Sometimes second-order components outweigh the first-order ones.
Consider the automobile or bicycle.  An important part of the
"machine" is the paved road itself; without it the tool would be
useless.  Likewise, an important part of a tool its the user's
investment in learning its user interface (the issue the LPF
addresses) or the surrounding culture which allowed it to evolve
(addressed both by the LPF and FSF).  Why should software producers be
granted a monopoly to exploit the user's investment?

   I personally support the LPF (as a member), and consider its goals to be
   valid.  I do not think that software development should be socialized,
   because that would restrict the freedom of developers to compete in the
   market.

It's the current situation which is restricting the freedom of
developers to make improvements and of consumers to go for the
features they want.  Let's get the government out of it and let the
free market truly set prices.

   Is the Manifesto a dead document?

No, it's alive and well and living online.