Message 01678 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 20/129 L12 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Documentation Standards was Re: [ox-en] UserLinux






On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Niall Douglas wrote:

However, software freedom to me includes the right to commercialise if
that's better for the software - injection of capital lets you do
innovation quite impossible without a government grant under the GPL -
and most governments quite rightly won't put public money towards GPL
development, only BSD/MIT etc.

On Mon, 8 Dec 2003, Russell McOrmond wrote:

  You are confusing a freedom with a business model.  It needs to be
understood that collecting royalty payments is simply one business model
among many, and for software it is a poor business model.  There is
nothing in the GPL that says you cannot commercialise the software, and
all the commercial companies working with GPL software including my own is
proof of that.  What you can't do is charge royalty fees on the software,
and can't take rights away from your customers that were granted to you.


I think the whole idea of freedom is confusing and ambiguous.  just listen
to the differences (and similarities) of what george bush's freedom is and
rms's freedom.  I for one am confused. 

but, I do think Niall is barking up the wrong tree. I think innovation is
VERY possible under granting schemes, in fact I would say it is much more
possible than under commercial schemes.  first of all, I'm a firm beleiver
that people who are motivated by passion will out-perform anyone else who
is motivated by dollars.  I don't think you need to hang carrots in front
of people to make them move.  They move and investigate naturally if they
are well fed - so it certainly helps to give them carrots everynow and
then.

If you think commercial capital is incentive to do things faster, I would
ask you then, what's the rush?  


Raj says:

<snip>There are enough examples of innovative software being developed
without injection of capital from any party.  Apache is probably the
first that springs to mind.  Another is OpenSSL.  Could you explain how
these don't meet your innovation criterion?</snip>

I agree with Raj here.  There are plenty of examples of innovative
non-commercial GPL software.  Injection of capital would help them too
though.  I think governments could rightly put money towards GPL software. 
I think Software is (in many cases, but maybe not all) social and needs to
be addressed this way. social capital as opposed to commercial capital. 

I think commercial intersts are inherently very populist (in a bad way)
and un-innovative.  If you analyse the UI of the two popular operating
systems, you can see that it makes very base assumptions about its users.

and if you look at commercial programming from the perspective of
television and radio, i would certainly say that social programming is
MUCH better than commercial programming.  my opinion.  However, I only
know canadian, american and austrian television.  Austrian and canadian
television are simply MUCH better imho.  I feel like my intelligence is
being insulted when I watch ami tv.


If we assume that commercial interests are based on competition (which I
think we can fairly do), I guess my question would be with what SHOULD
commercial free software compete? 
(you'll probably say that its not the software that is competing, but the
service.  I would ask then why?)





Raj continues.

<snip>
2. Right to commercialise.

A common mistake, mixing up commercial with free (as in freedom).
Free software may be commercial, the GPL doesn't prevent you from
exploiting free software for money.

OTOH if you mean proprietary when you say commercial, I take serious
exception with your views.  The notion of proprietary information has
only been around a hundred years or so (I'm no historian).  Before
that all art, music, technology and writing was free as in freedom.
We ourselves imposed restrictions on the freedom of information and
now we turn those restrictions into holy cows that may not be touched
or whose existence and relevance questioned.
</snip>


didn't copyright come out of the french revolution?  please correct me if
I am wrong. ....but I thought copyright came from musicians who were
basically sponsored by royalty who would pay them to compose, but who
"owned" the composition afterwards.   Copyright, and royalties, came then
out of desire of musicians to receive payment for the performance of their
works.

art and music, afaik, especially from the production standpoint, where not
"free" in any sense, but sponsored and owned by royalty. 



best -august.

_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/



Thread: oxenT01623 Message: 20/129 L12 [In index]
Message 01678 [Homepage] [Navigation]