From: Christian Szegedy (szegedy@or.uni-bonn.de)
Date: Tue Jun 19 2001 - 10:20:17 MDT
Mike Lorrey wrote:
> This is untrue. Robert Stallman is on record specifically admitting that his
> goal in creating the GNU license was to destroy and bankrupt any software
> developer that ever made a buck on software.
I looked at some speeches and manifests of Mr.Stallman for example the
most recent one:
http://www.gnu.org/events/rms-nyu-2001-transcript.txt
(I have to remark that this is about the same as his first talks in 1984, his
philosophy remained remarkably stable over the years.)
Let us look at what Stallman really says:
| So, I was looking
| for some way I could make money through my work on free software,
| and therefore I started a free software business. I announced, "Send me
| $150 dollars, and I'll mail you a tape of Emacs." And the orders began
| dribbling in. By the middle of the year they were trickling in.
| I was getting 8 to 10 orders a month.
[...]
| Now, how do free software businesses work? Well, some of them sell
| copies. You know, you're free to copy it but they can still sell
| thousands of copies a month. And others sell support and various kinds
| of services. I, personally, for the second half of the '80's, I sold free
| software support services. Basically I said, for $200 an hour, I'll
| change whatever you want me to change in GNU software that I'd written.
| And, yes, it was a stiff rate, but if it was a program that I was the
| author of, people would figure that I might get the job done in a lot
| fewer hours. [Laughter] And I made a living that way. In fact, I'd made
| more than I'd ever made before.
[...]
| But, 1990 was when the first corporation free software business was
| formed, which was Cygnus Support. And their business was to do,
| essentially, the same kind of thing that I'd been doing. I certainly
| could have worked for them, if I had needed to do that. Since I didn't
| need to, I felt it was good for the movement if I remained independent of
| any one company. That way, I could say good and bad things about the
| various free software and nonfree software companies, without a conflict
| of interest. I felt that I could serve the movement more. But, if I had
| needed that to make a living, sure, I would have worked for them. It's an
| ethical business to be in. No reason I would have felt ashamed to take a
| job with them.
[...]
| So, I've talked about how free software affects most business. But how
| does it affect that particular narrow area which is software business?
| Well, the answer is mostly not at all. And the reason is that 90% of the
| software industry, from what I'm told, is development of custom
| software, software that's not meant to be released at all. For custom
| software, this issue, or the ethical issue of free or proprietary, doesn't
| arise. You see, the issue is, are you users free to change, and
| redistribute, the software? If there's only one user, and that user owns
| the rights, there's no problem. That user *is* free to do all these
| things. So, in effect, any *custom* program that was developed by one
| company for use in-house is free software, as long as they have the sense
| to insist on getting the source code and all the rights.
There are some interesting semantical issues in
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html
also:
| Please don't use ``commercial'' as a synonym for ``non-free''.
| That confuses two entirely different issues.
| A program is commercial if it is developed as a business activity.
| A commercial program can be free or non-free, depending on its
| license. Likewise, a program developed by a school or an individual
| can be free or non-free, depending on its license. The two questions,
| what sort of entity developed the program and what freedom its
| users have, are independent.
[...]
| If you want to say that a program is free software, please don't say
| that it is available ``for free.'' That term specifically means
| ``for zero price.'' Free software is a matter of freedom, not price.
| Free software copies are often available for free--for example,
| by downloading via FTP. But free software copies are also available for
| a price on CD-ROMs; meanwhile, proprietary software copies are occasionally
| available for free in promotions, and some proprietary packages are
| normally available at no charge to certain users.
| To avoid confusion, you can say that the program is available ``as free software.''
[...]
| The term ``sell software'' is ambiguous. Strictly speaking, exchanging a
| copy of a free program for a sum of money is ``selling''; but people usually
| associate the term ``sell'' with proprietary restrictions on the subsequent
| use of the software. You can be more precise, and prevent confusion, by saying
| either ``distributing copies of a program for a fee'' or ``imposing proprietary
| restrictions on the use of a program,'' depending on what you mean.
[...]
| The word ``free'' has two legitimate general meanings; it can refer either to
| freedom or to price. When we speak of ``free software'', we're talking about freedom,
| not price. (Think of ``free speech'', not ``free beer''.) Specifically, it means
| that a user is free to run the program, change the program, and redistribute the
| program with or without changes.
| Free programs are sometimes distributed gratis, and sometimes for a substantial price.
| Often the same program is available in both ways from different places. The program
| is free regardless of the price, because users have freedom in using it.
| Non-free programs are usually sold for a high price, but sometimes a store will give
| you a copy at no charge. That doesn't make it free software, though. Price or no price,
| the program is non-free because users don't have freedom.
[...]
| Strictly speaking, ``selling'' means trading goods for money. Selling a copy
| of a free program is legitimate, and we encourage it.
Mike, it seems the it is YOUR statement which is untrue: it is not even an
oversimplification, it is simply uncorrect and demagogue like Mundies
hate-speeches against free software.
Some people seem to have the interest to distribute desinformation, since they
can't argue against the real arguments.
Christian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:11 MST