Re: [ox-en] Germ of a new form of society or germ of a new form of business?
- From: "Niall Douglas" <s_fsfeurope2 nedprod.com>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 00:43:38 -0000
On 25 Jan 2004 at 13:34, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
On Sun, Jan 25, 2004 at 02:45:05AM -0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
The result I would still call free software though it won't fit the
OSI definition. Put it this way - it's close enough and I don't
think anyone other than the GPL zealots will complain.
Can you elaborate on what you think this quasi-free software will look
like?
If you remember threads involving me on fsfeurope.org discussion, I
have stated many times that I do not view the GPL as a free software
license. If I remember correctly, you strongly disagree with this
assertion of mine and neither has persuaded the other to date!
For me, ideal free software is that whose use engenders the maximum
rate of step-change innovation and thus maximum increasing usefulness
and productivity for the user(s). This strongly implies a large
latitude for the user to apply software to their own unique problem.
I think that by characterizing those people that cling tightly to the
principle freedoms of Free Software, and by extension into the OSD,
Open Source as well, as "GPL zealots" you mean to trivialize both
their position and their influence. I think this position biases your
arguments and, at least for folks like me that are probably in the
group you would characterize as "GPL zealots", offends your audience.
If one continues to think that GPLed software is free software
despite it being so obviously not so then I can only conclude that
either that person is deluded or a zealot.
I hardly trivialise their position and especially not influence. As
you know, I fear the consequences of the GPL which are extremely bad
for creating and maintaining innovation. It must not be allowed to
become the de facto software license.
Some software, like LaTeX, was released under a not-quite-free license
and the authors kicked and screamed but finally was able to work with
Debian-legal to come up with a license that would fit the definition
(and principles) of Free Software. Being distributed in Debian and
being Open Source was simply *that* important to them.
More fool them. I know that saying what I'm about to say will not be
popular, but to be quite frank, Debian is quite unimportant in the
bigger picture. On the basis of simple numbers what RedHat decide is
far more important to what Linux is and will be than Debian. Sure, it
has some influence, but far less than its protagonists would have you
believe.
As I have said many times, the true engineer chooses the best tools
available. Not for political, legal nor philosophical grounds nor
even cost within reason. If one doesn't do that, one must accept they
are a substandard programmer & engineer and must especially accept
that one has absolutely no right whatsoever to preach their
superiority to others who are less self-castrated. This is where much
of the source for my increasing distaste for these influential
extreme factions of the free software movement originates.
People *are* driven to FLOSS by non-philosophical reasons but the fact
that FLOSS was created with a specific and inflexible definition is
what has allowed FLOSS to develop into a recognizable
social/development/etc movement and, now that it has critical mass,
will make it a hard beast to slay through the type of erosion into
quasi-FLOSS you seem to describing.
The GPL's key weak point is its inability to step-change innovate.
It's great at cloning, but volunteers only wish to clone distinctly
unfree functionality and commercial interests are simply not
interested in sinking a lot of cash into GPL development. As I have
mentioned before, all evidence shows that far more commercial cash is
poured into BSD/MIT software development than GPL because business
knows that permanently locking yourself out of commercial use is
stupid - you are cutting off your hands to spite your face.
I wager that if a more free software license than the GPL - but less
free than BSD - came along that was "good enough" for most people,
there simply wouldn't be the volunteer numbers willing to bother
cloning it. Put more simply - if Windows didn't cost anything at all,
I bet there'd be far fewer Linux boxes around.
If people want to know more about my views of what software is, you
can find more at http://www.nedprod.com/programs/definition.html
Cheers,
Niall