frank at g-n-u.de
Thu May 10 18:32:50 UTC 2001
> > > This material is hereby released to the public. It is not allowed to
> > > be profitting from this material by selling it's use or the material
> > [...]
> > If Apache had this licence, could I take money for website hosting?
> Yes. You are not selling it directly, or selling it use.
Err, what is Apache's use? Serving http requests, I used to think.
And what is the (main) service in website hosting? Serving http
requests, I used to think. What did I miss?
> > How would I afford to buy webspace to let others download
> > the program?
> Private money and give it away.
<cynical> Oh, great. Now we may not even take money for the good
work we do if someone is willing to pay for it, we must also spend
our own money in addition. This is really going to encourage people
to write free software, isn't it? </cynical>
> This is free software, and you guys
> who want te make a living from it ar ruining it, because it will end up
> being some bisnis model.
Void assertions. Can you give any example of a free software project
ruined by becoming a "business model"?
OTOH, it's easy to find lots of projects which got abandoned long
before v1.0 because the programmer had to spend his/her time on more
mundane things like making money for a living.
> About me agreeing with RMS: I agree with him when I read the discussions
> between ESR.... yes, I agree with RMS, and the difference between the
> /alledged/ position of Linus which is suposedly he doesn't care (don't
> want to put worth in his mouth here)... yes, then I would go with RMS.
> But (evidentally) I'm much more radical then RMS.
I don't actually think so, or you have a very odd definition of
freedom. Take a look at your own draft: it contains a long paragraph
full of "It is not allowed to ..." and "must not". To me, freedom
reads like "you *are* allowed to ...". And also to RMS -- the main
"must not" he uses is "you must not restrict others' freedom"
So, sorry, but I think RMS is much more serious about freedom than
> But then again: am I really that radical when almost all software is
> given away for nothing, and almost all free-hackers do it for the fun
> of writing and the knowledge people can use it for free ?
Almost all? Did you check recently how many kernel, GCC, KDE, etc.
developers are paid by Transmeta, VA Linux, Red Hat, SuSE,
TrollTech, etc. *for* hacking?
What do you want, actually? -- Business exists. (If you want to
change this, fine, start your revolution -- but this list is not the
right place for it, and until you've succeeded, that's the reality.)
So, if free software and business were really made incompatible,
what would this mean: Would businesses dissolve so they could use
free software? You must be joking. Or would it just force them to
use proprietary software? Of course. -- And as a writer and user of
free software, I want to promote the use and development of free
software, not to restrict it.
According to your ideas, only the "die-hard" idealists would be
allowed and willing to write and use free software. I might be one
of them (though not in the amount I'm now because I'd have to get
some other "day job"), but I prefer to be part of a larger movement
than of a small, scattered group. Are you afraid of the loss of
Now, the following will probably generate some flames, but I'll
write it, anyway:
In fact, your position fits quite well to that of M$. They would
also like to see free software restricted to hobby projects and kept
out of anything related to money -- then their dominance would not
be threatened. And they'd surely like if only the very idealistic
would be "allowed" to write free software -- then there would be
much less free software for them to worry about. Of course, they
also like to pay people not for writing free software (but
proprietary software). Surely they'd like to have us believe we
can't influence politicians -- so they can do it more easily. And
they probably also like to see this "infighting" going on here. So I
think you're making the M$ spies that certainly monitor this list
Note: I don't claim (or think) you are an M$ spy, I just couldn't
but notice this coincidence ...
: For the GNU Project, the emphasis is in the other order: the
: important thing is that GNU Ada is free software; whether it is
: commercial does not directly matter. However, the additional
: development of GNU Ada that results from this commerce is
: definitely beneficial.
Frank Heckenbach, frank at g-n-u.de
PGP and GPG keys: http://fjf.gnu.de/plan
More information about the Discussion