At 12:02 PM 2/14/2002, Sylvain Petreolle wrote:
The longer I read your posts on this mailing list, the more I think you don't like Open Source or Free projects.
Not true. I'm very much in favor of a truly free intellectual commons, and I'm very thankful for the existence of code such as BSD and Apache. But (L)GPLed code is neither open source nor "free." That the FSF says otherwise cannot change this fact.
You like commercial projects, with lawyers, profits and copy protection.
I do like some commercial products very much, and I like the companies that make them to make profits so that the products will continue to be improved. I like coding for a living, and I do not want the FSF and its licenses to succeed in its agenda, which consists of wiping out all commercial software and destroying decent jobs for programmers.
On the other hand, I strongly support the notions of fair use and the first sale doctrine, and I don't buy copy protected software.
As for lawyers: Hiring them is sometimes a necessary expense (for example, if you're negotiating a contract). But I wouldn't say that I "like" using them.
Why don't you say that Linux is a sabotage of HP,IBM, Microsoft,(non-exhaustive list) OS providers ?
Anything that's GPLed throws a "monkey wrench" into the relevant market, and (if it's any good) eventually destroys all competition. GCC is great example. It's a mediocre compiler, but notably *better* compilers -- the ones I need for some of the work I do -- are not selling.
GCC was one of the very first FSF projects. The others, as they progress, are beginning to have similar effects on the markets which they have invaded. The progression leads, inexorably, to the extinction of alternatives and the elimination of user choice.
Note that closed source programs are consuming time, employees,money... and are slowing the development.
I disagree.
In short, Stallman urges programmers to sabotage their employers' IP -- by injecting GPLed code into it -- so that it must be given away.
If I were a the boss of an ecologic team, I would urge my colleagues to respect the nature... Wouldn't you ? :-)
Yes. And the purpose of the GPL is to poison the well of truly free software that existed long before Stallman founded the FSF. That ecology was balanced. The GPL injects a "poison pill" designed to destroy the commercial players, destroying the delicate symbiosis between commercial and freely available software.
--Brett