[yavor at doganov.org: Re: Defining Free Software Business]

[Sam Liddicott]

Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>    > All the four freedoms need to be usable for something to be
>    > useful.  If you can't upload a new copy, then being able to
>    > modify it is pointless I think.
>
>    Then what did RMS use to write emacs and gcc?
>
> It is called a `needed evil'.  When RMS wrote emacs and GCC, NO free
> software operating system existed.  It was impossible to _not_ use
> non-free software.  Today it is possible to use 100% software.  So
> there is no reason to use non-free software at all.
>   
It has been repeated often enough here that in many lines of business it
is NOT possible to transfer instantly to use 100% free software and that
it is not even a neccessary evil, but a noble good, to aid the
transition by means of compatability tools AS WELL AS WRITING NEW SOFTWARE.
>    Just because he now has free versions of his tools doesn't mean other
>    users yet have free versions of their tools; or tool-sets.
>
> They have the tools to write free versions.
>   
Go and make a warp drive then. "You" "have" "the tools".
It takes time, and some of the tools are not yet written, and have to be
made with tools that are written.
Some of the money is not there but will start to appear as more people
start to demand it.
Demand is incremental as benefits are gained.
> You are resorting to straw man arguments.
>   
No, actually, I wasn't. (And I don't suffer from "strawman argument
calling" fear either.)
I'm saying that just because RMS has solved HIS problems, doesn't mean
everyone else has YET.

You can say on his behalf "Damn you lot, I'm off" if you like, which is
what it sounds like.

Sam