🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <9301021752.AA25483@life.ai.mit.edu> 
tower@ai.mit.edu (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:

>Date: 2 Jan 93 09:39:01 GMT
>From: zeleny@husc9.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)

>>In article <9212300616.AA25845@mole.gnu.ai.mit.edu> 
>>rms@gnu.ai.mit.edu (Richard Stallman) writes:

RMS:
>>If you'd like us to develop more software, I hope you will order some
>>CDs or tapes and thus help us pay more programmers.  80 CDs, ordered
>>at the company price, will support one programmer for a year.

MZ:
>Not counting the overhead costs, this amount would appear to be less
>than half of the 1985 dollars you paid to your first employee.  Not
>only are you a damn good capitalist, but an efficient slave-driver,
>too.

LT:
>As the first paid person rms had to work on GNU software, I like to
>clarify a few facts:
>     - i was paid $30,000 for a year work by a third party, who
>assigned me to work with rms on GNU software.
>     - 80 * $400 = $32,000.
>
>If you inflation adjust 32,000 1992 dollars to 30,000 1985 dollars,
>Zeleny statement that present FSF employees are making less then half
>what I was paid in 1985 is close, but the actual amount is a good bit
>more then half.

Hi, Len.  I was there, remember?  In any case, my point is that the
important things in life, -- rent, booze, rides, tuition, books,
smokes, theater tickets, and so on, -- have all gone up in price more
than 100%.  The only important items I can get cheaper these days are
ex-commie goods, like black caviar and exotic women.

LT:
>FSF's employees are not slaves though.  They are all working for FSF of
>their own free will.

Sure they do.  And some slaves sold themselves into slavery of their
own free will.  Like I say, I have no idea whether the above figure
includes overhead, as it ought to; but regardless of that, the implied
maximum figure is way below par for professional work, particularly
when Stallman's original penny-pinching rationale of "they have to
show that they are doing it for the idea" no longer applies as FSF is
looking more and more like a conventional software company.

>-len
>

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."

>>>>> On 3 Jan 93 04:18:44 GMT, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael
>>>>> Zeleny) (MZ henceforth) said:

MZ> In article <9301021752.AA25483@life.ai.mit.edu> tower@ai.mit.edu
MZ> (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:

MZ> LT:
>FSF's employees are not slaves though.  They are all working for FSF
>of their own free will.

MZ> Sure they do.  And some slaves sold themselves into slavery of
MZ> their own free will.  Like I say, I have no idea whether the above
MZ> figure includes overhead, as it ought to; but regardless of that,
MZ> the implied maximum figure is way below par for professional work,
MZ> particularly when Stallman's original penny-pinching rationale of
MZ> "they have to show that they are doing it for the idea" no longer
MZ> applies as FSF is looking more and more like a conventional
MZ> software company.

For someone who has accused many other posters of petty rhetorical
tricks, the paragraph above is pretty rich. 

For a start, once sold into slavery, (whether that decision was one's
own or not), a person no longer has the freedom that is guaranteed to
all adults by law. The difference here is that the people working at
the FDF continue to do so by their own free choice as well. They are
not bound as a slave would be. 

The FSF is like a conventional software company? "More and more like"
even? Well, let's see now, they do charge people money for a service
they provide, (even if they misleadingly call it a distribution fee; I
agree with Michael that it is a poor term), but there are not many
software companies out there that have the source for their products
available at no cost at ftp sites around the world. (Excluding the
costs, if you want to be pedantic, inherent in the medium of
transmission). What's more anybody is _free_ (there is that evil word
again), to *use* the provided products without any restrictions on
their use. Pick some 'conventional software companies', do they do
this? Does Microsoft have the source for Windows available for ftp at
their sites? Is Microsoft perhaps not a conventional software company?

If I may be allowed a rhetorical flourish of my own: 
      pull the other one!

If the FSF feels that it is appropriate to establish legal restrictions
on the potential future redistribution of the software to ensure that
people remain free to use it, that is their privilege as owners of the
software. 

Perhaps this overly caustic debate would subside if the term
distribution fee was replaced by price?

Michael.

mnorrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz
"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish) writes:
>their use. Pick some 'conventional software companies', do they do
>this? Does Microsoft have the source for Windows available for ftp at
>their sites? Is Microsoft perhaps not a conventional software company?

As a programmer, I find Microsoft source code as available to me as FSF
source code.  That is, not at all.

Compare two hypothetical situtations:

Situtation 1: I take a job to write a program for a company.  I realize that
something I need to do has been done in Microsoft Windows.  I can't use
the Windows source, however, because Microsoft has not shown it to me.

Situtation 2: I take a job to write a program for a company.  I realize that
something I need to do has been done in GNU Emacs.  I can't use the Emacs
source, however, because the program I am working on is proprietary.

Looks the same to me.

--Tim Smith

In <1i8cgeINN8l6@shelley.u.washington.edu> tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) writes:

>Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish) writes:
>>their use. Pick some 'conventional software companies', do they do
>>this? Does Microsoft have the source for Windows available for ftp at
>>their sites? Is Microsoft perhaps not a conventional software company?
>
>As a programmer, I find Microsoft source code as available to me as FSF
>source code.  That is, not at all.
>
>Compare two hypothetical situtations:
>
>Situtation 1: I take a job to write a program for a company.  I realize that
>something I need to do has been done in Microsoft Windows.  I can't use
>the Windows source, however, because Microsoft has not shown it to me.
>
>Situtation 2: I take a job to write a program for a company.  I realize that
>something I need to do has been done in GNU Emacs.  I can't use the Emacs
>source, however, because the program I am working on is proprietary.
>
>Looks the same to me.

Perhaps superficially, but they are not really the same.  And it
becomes clear when looking at the situations as you've described them:
In situation one, you can't use it because of another company's
policies; in situation 2, you can't use it because of your own
company's policies.

Another point is that since you have the GNU Emacs source, you can
look at the source to see how the piece you're interested in works, so
you can rewrite your own version if need be.

-- 
Milt Epstein
Department of Computer Science
University of Illinois
epstein@cs.uiuc.edu

In article <C0B32v.2Br@comp.vuw.ac.nz> 
Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish) writes:

>>>>>> On 3 Jan 93 04:18:44 GMT, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael
>>>>>> Zeleny) (MZ henceforth) said:

>MZ> In article <9301021752.AA25483@life.ai.mit.edu> tower@ai.mit.edu
>MZ> (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:

>LT> FSF's employees are not slaves though.  They are all working for FSF
>LT> of their own free will.

>MZ> Sure they do.  And some slaves sold themselves into slavery of
>MZ> their own free will.  Like I say, I have no idea whether the above
>MZ> figure includes overhead, as it ought to; but regardless of that,
>MZ> the implied maximum figure is way below par for professional work,
>MZ> particularly when Stallman's original penny-pinching rationale of
>MZ> "they have to show that they are doing it for the idea" no longer
>MZ> applies as FSF is looking more and more like a conventional
>MZ> software company.

>For someone who has accused many other posters of petty rhetorical
>tricks, the paragraph above is pretty rich. 

Sez you.

>For a start, once sold into slavery, (whether that decision was one's
>own or not), a person no longer has the freedom that is guaranteed to
>all adults by law. The difference here is that the people working at
>the FDF continue to do so by their own free choice as well. They are
>not bound as a slave would be. 

Wage slavery is a peculiarly modern form of bondage.  But I accept the
charge of a petty rhetorical trick, notwithstanding my conviction
that, until the imminent abolition of the monetary system arrives in
this benighted land, all professional work ought to be compensated by
professional standards.

>The FSF is like a conventional software company? "More and more like"
>even? Well, let's see now, they do charge people money for a service
>they provide, (even if they misleadingly call it a distribution fee; I
>agree with Michael that it is a poor term), but there are not many
>software companies out there that have the source for their products
>available at no cost at ftp sites around the world. (Excluding the
>costs, if you want to be pedantic, inherent in the medium of
>transmission). What's more anybody is _free_ (there is that evil word
>again), to *use* the provided products without any restrictions on
>their use. Pick some 'conventional software companies', do they do
>this? Does Microsoft have the source for Windows available for ftp at
>their sites? Is Microsoft perhaps not a conventional software company?

This point has been made elsewhere, but since you are being civil, I
shall amplify: the terms of the GPL place an enormous restriction on
any professional use of GNU.  Whether or not you sympathize with
"software hoarding", is quite beside the point.  The only difference I
would effect in the GNU distribution policies, is changing the legal
constraint into a supererogatory request, providing an adequate venue
for consensual appropriation of source code.  If you wish to promote
free exchange of information, the last thing you should do is demand
that anyone who includes your information in his work, thereby assign
the ownership of the latter to yourself.

What exactly is the problem you have with the public domain?

>If I may be allowed a rhetorical flourish of my own: 
>      pull the other one!
>
>If the FSF feels that it is appropriate to establish legal restrictions
>on the potential future redistribution of the software to ensure that
>people remain free to use it, that is their privilege as owners of the
>software. 

Agreed.  But this proviso, in conjunction with their continued
trumpeting of freedom, amounts to hypocrisy of the worst sort.

It is a clear choice between freedom and restriction.  One has to go.

>Perhaps this overly caustic debate would subside if the term
>distribution fee was replaced by price?

Not a chance.  The crux of the issue is elsewhere.

>Michael.
>
>mnorrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz
>"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."

>>>>> Regarding Re: Fund raising at the FSF; tzs@stein.u.washington.edu (Tim Smith) adds:

  tzs> [...]
  tzs> I realize that something I need to do has been done in Microsoft
  tzs> Windows.  I can't use the Windows source, however, because
  tzs> Microsoft has not shown it to me.

  tzs> [...]
  tzs> I realize that something I need to do has been done in GNU Emacs.
  tzs> I can't use the Emacs source, however, because the program I am
  tzs> working on is proprietary.

  tzs> Looks the same to me.

Well, not quite the same. You can look at the emacs source and maybe
learn something from it, heck, you might even steal(?) the idea how the
code does it's magic and I bet RMS won't send his lawyers out to punch
you because your program is also capable of "editing text in an interactive,
keyboard driven way" or something like that. Try distributing a really
market-smashing spreadsheet that uses Lotus-Style menus and you'll see what
you'll get ...

bye -- Thomas