press release critique
joshb at xs4all.nl
Thu May 3 19:01:54 UTC 2001
> Xavier Drudis Ferran <xdrudis at tinet.org> wrote:
> El Wed, May 02, 2001 at 09:26:12PM +0200, josX deia:
> > Agree 100%
> > Wavering away from RMS mostly results in chaos, does it not ;-) ?
> Possibly. RMS has spent a lot of time thinking these things, in a
> quite rational way, and he is as clever as anyone, so anyone thinking
<...snip to safe bandwith ;-)>
I see we are on the same track. Great.
I am not against making money off of free software to the extent that
is reasonable, but I argue it should be seen as being a side-show to the
hacker-fun of giving away: what bought pleasure can compete with the
satisfaction of having your stuff included in Debian!! :-)) (or better: GNU).
Ok, no-one argued with that, but the FSF(E) is for the hacker, so it should
be focused on that mind-set, and not on the mind-set of corporate suits
I don't trust the money-bisnis on whatever level, but as long is integrity
is maintained there should not be harm. History shows this to be very
hard on the middle to long-term. I hope we can do better, because if we
can that will be a revolution in itself almost... I fear we can, but who
will come after us, or penetrate the system if we are going to get involved
in money things, even if it is by suporting a view that gives the corporate
world something to work with.
I think we should simply ignore the money issue, and the issue of making
money of free software in what the FSF(E) says. It has no meaning for the
hackers who make it.
I am repeating myself here, I better stop ;-).
ps The basic difference between "the two views" is that I am a bit
paranoid of the money world, while others see benifit in including them
marginally or more.
I may very well be wrong, but more than a marginal inclusion seems off
considdering the base of GNU/Linux: hackers who work for freedom and
do it for nothing too. So what about maintaining a neutral tone and
informative tone when it comes to money (not yelling "free software is
to make big $$$!!!", but simply stating what is possible and what not
currently), and concentrating on the things that are the core: hackers
who give it away.
I still think this will be a tactical error, but not one we can't correct
if need be, an maybe things work out nicely, who knows...
More information about the Discussion