Re: [ox-en] Germ of a new form of society or germ of a new form of business?
- From: "Benj. Mako Hill" <mako debian.org>
- Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2004 19:27:27 -0800
On Tue, Jan 27, 2004 at 01:03:25AM -0000, Niall Douglas wrote:
On 25 Jan 2004 at 23:34, Benj. Mako Hill wrote:
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 disagree with you Niall but I don't think you are deluded or a
zealot -- and I probably wouldn't call you one even if I did. Consider
for a moment that maybe folks aren't as confused and uncritical as you
think because your conclusions are *not* as obvious as you imply.
Perhaps.
Good start Niall. :)
What is fundamental to my way of thinking on this subject is
morality (which I define as that which maximises self-
sustainability).
Again. Your *own* moral system. That's fine. But don't call other
people self-castrated or deluded when they don't share your moral
system and they don't come to the same conclusions.
To believe the GPL is a desirous-for-all license is thus immoral to
me, and hence one finds oneself lacking a framework of expression
other than religious.
Those you criticize don't always think that the GPL is a
one-size-fits-all license. I've personally released software under the
modified Artistic and submitted code under the modified BSD.
In a more extreme example, I'm a fan of MAME (the Multiple Arcade
Machine Emulator) which has a non-commercial clause and is not even
Free Software! Due to the unique circumstances of that project[1] they
felt in was in best interest of their project's survival to go this
route until the broken legal systems in which they work is fixed. I
tend to agree.
I hardly trivialise their position and especially not influence.
If saying that anyone who holds an idea is either deluded or a zealot
is not trivializing a position, I'm not sure what is. You are not
trivializing the effect of the position but you aren't willing to
admit that a sane, critical, non-deluded person could hold it.
The majority of the west's population believe that globalisation is a
good thing. They are sane & critical people but they are deluded.
Why? Because they accept, without thinking through thoroughly, what
they consider their leaders tell them to think.
Trivializing the position of the pro-globalization movement -- even
through I happen to disagree with them -- is not going to get you far
in your argument that you are *not* trivializing fans of the GPL.
It is a similar situation with the GPL. It looks good on first
contact and the mythos and culture which surrounds it also appeal to
those seeking an alternative to proprietary exploitation. But let's
face it - it is not a panacea and worse, applying it willy-nilly to
everything is catastrophic for certain kinds of software.
I have yet to see you point to such a catastrophe: a *real* example
and not conjecture or a hypothetical situation.
You need more real example and experiences to back up your claim or
you end up sounding like the religion spouting zealots you find so
distasteful.
For me freeing software means also being able to commercialise it or
do anything at all reasonable with it so long as you return the
enhancements back to the public freely.
Wait, this is exactly what the GPL does. You can do do anything you
want with GPL'ed software, as can anyone else, as long as they pass
along their enhancements in such a way that other can do the same.
What am I missing?
The reality is that under a services funding model you will always do
the absolute minimum necessary to comply with the contract. You will
not revolutionise things, not tip up the apple cart nor anything like
it because it takes longer and is more complex.
This is unsupported and unsupportable. How do you explain the
volunteer Free Software movement which makes no money at all and often
does very complex reimplementation and reimprovements? How do you
explain Mozilla which was *designed* to do a simple improvement of
Netscape and ended up rewriting the entire browser from scratch into
a system that is a substantial improvement over the alternatives --
proprietary and free?
No, the GPL is extremely bad for innovation and worse, it stops
people being innovative by reusing GPL code.
I have previously pointed to many examples of reimplenetation and
innovations in code available in the GPL. Am I to assume you missed
them or simply ignoring them because they don't back up your own
arguments?
If Windows didn't cost anything at all, I bet there'd be far fewer
Linux boxes around.
That's clearly the case. But other things (TCO, upgrade paths,
security, accountability, dependence, etc.) also play a role. What's
your point here?
My point is that the only reason why the GPL is in such favour is
because most people operate in a "anything but Microsoft" mode.
I don't think the GPL has much to do with Microsoft at all. If people
wanted to get away from Microsoft at any cost, I think they might be
running to other proprietary operating systems as well. Remember that
IBM and HP are in the process of promoting Linux as an alternative to
their own internally developed Microsoft alternatives.
Regards,
Mako
[1] Basically, if someone starts making money off MAME, the volunteer
developers will in all likelihood get sued out of existence by the
copyright holders of the arcade games ROMs whose systems they are
emulating. As long as they don't make money, distribute the ROMS,
or emulate games from the last few years, they seem to be safe.
--
Benjamin Mako Hill
mako debian.org
http://mako.yukidoke.org/