[ale] More from Business Week

[Greg]

There is a reason for that and it is on the GNU website.  It is so that the
closed source firms cannot use the benefits of the open source community and
1) not contribute anything back in  and 2) to give open source developers a
level playing field when dealing with closed source.

Imagine if Bill Gates took a *nix and only worked on improving it and not
putting anything back in.  That would give him and his minions a severe leg
up on others.  I would have to (as an open source developer) do the same
work as all his developers just to stay even.  How would I get any work ?
How would the community push forward ?  The open source community would have
to re-invent the wheel while any open source work would help them.  It is
part trying to avoid the paradox of the commons (I think I have that right)
where the few profit at the expense of the many and part self preservation.

as Mr. Stallman has said (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/pragmatic.html)

Not everyone who uses the GNU GPL has this goal. Many years ago, a friend of
mine was asked to rerelease a copylefted program under non-copyleft terms,
and he responded more or less like this:


"Sometimes I work on free software, and sometimes I work on proprietary
software--but when I work on proprietary software, I expect to get paid.
He was willing to share his work with a community that shares software, but
saw no reason to give a handout to a business making products that would be
off limits to our community. His goal was different from mine, but he
decided that the GNU GPL was useful for his goal too.

If you want to accomplish something in the world, idealism is not
enough--you need to choose a method that works to achieve the goal. In other
words, you need to be ``pragmatic.'' Is the GPL pragmatic? ... "

and

"Proprietary software development does not contribute to our community, but
its developers often want handouts from us. Free software users can offer
free software developers strokes for the ego--recognition and gratitude--but
it can be very tempting when a business tells you, ``Just let us put your
package in our proprietary program, and your program will be used by many
thousands of people!'' The temptation can be powerful, but in the long run
we are all better off if we resist it. "

	I will give you an even better and personal example.  Me and my for-free
efforts, like ALE and Free-Bytes.  I consider this a really small gift from
me to the community and in no way close to what I have gained from that
community and I *have* gained from the free efforts of others in the open
source community.  I really enjoy these things and am willing to do whatever
needs to be done.  However, I would be somewhat irked if Mr.
pseudo-consultant-who-knows-not-his-business were to make any money off of
my efforts or to use me as his personal for-free consultant/help desk.  Then
it is *business* and not charity (Free Bytes) or a hobby (ALE).  After 13
months of not having a full time job I am not interested in working for
free.  No one wants to buy the cow if you give the milk for free and I am in
the cow business.

	If I did anything under a BSD license then what is stopping someone from
just letting me do the work for them for free ??  At least under the GPL it
legally forces them to contribute any improvements back into the community.
Yeah, you might make some $$, but it was that way from the beginning.  This
is what keeps a multitude of companies from nibbling away at MS and other
closed source companies - and we all know it.  The GNU site says it best
when it says that there is a time for the BSD license and a time for the
GPL.  At any rate, it (along with proprietary licenses) they all give
everyone a choice, and that, I submit, is the most important thing.

jeepers, sorry I went on for so bloody long.

Greg



> -----Original Message-----
> From: ale-admin at ale.org [mailto:ale-admin at ale.org]On Behalf Of Marvin
> Dickens
> Sent: Saturday, February 22, 2003 2:45 PM
> To: ale at ale.org
> Subject: Re: [ale] More from Business Week
>
>
> On Saturday 22 February 2003 06:59 pm, Jeff Hubbs wrote:
>
> > > > I'm not as hard core in my beliefs as Stallman, and I choose to view
> > > > open source as an attitude, not a license.
>
> Not wanting to start a debate or flame war, but I prefer the BSD
> license over
> anything the FSF has issued in the way of a license. If the FSF was truly
> interested in producing 100% free software, the GPL would let anybody do
> anything they wanted to with the code. The way the GPL is put together,
> you can't do anything you want to with the code (Therefore, the
> software is
> not free). Ultimately, the FSF has the last word regarding GPL'ed
> code, not
> the user of GPL'ed code. Because of this, everything I have ever given
> away in the form of code, has had the BSD license attached: If I
> give it away,
> I give it away without any restrictions of any kind or type: You can do
> anything you want to with it and I don't care.
>
>
> Best
>
> Marvin
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale
>

_______________________________________________
Ale mailing list
Ale at ale.org
http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale