Re: Larry Wall on "Evolutionary Changes in Freeware"

["Erick Andrews" <eandrews@star.net>]

On Mon, 30 Mar 1998 15:54:48 -0500 (EST), Beech Family wrote:

>Given the various threads on software licenses, etc. etc..I was moved to do
>some research on the topic..
>
>In the course of my research, I found this article, which I thought might
>be of interest to the listmembers.
>
>
>Best Regards,
>
>Heather
>
>========================================
>http://webreview.com/wr/pub/98/03/13/feature/lwall-mozilla.html
>
>Evolutionary Changes in Freeware Or
>I'm Not Religious About Freeware
>
>by Larry Wall Mar. 13, 1998
>
>This is an edited excerpt from Larry Wall's Keynote Address at last year's
>Perl Conference. Larry is the father of Perl, one of the most successful
>freeware projects.
>
>Many years ago, all we had was commercial software, by and large. Sure, we
>all rolled our own software too, but there wasn't a good mechanism in place
>to share software, and you certainly couldn't get your company to
>distribute free software officially.
>
>Then along came the free software movement. Of course, we all think of
>Richard Stallman at this point. He was certainly the chief lightning rod of
>the movement, but the fact is that the time was ripe for it, and many of us
>were publishing free software at the time. We had to do it in spite of the
>commercial interests of the time, and we had to invent our own
>infrastructure, so naturally there arose an antagonism between the
>commercial software community and the free software community. It was a
>natural overreaction that continues to this day, and there are some of you
>sitting right here who are on opposite sides of that battle.
>
>Some of you believe that free software has its place in spawning new ideas,
>but that a piece of software isn't really successful until it has been
>taken over and commercialized by industry. Others of you sitting here
>believe that once any commercial entity takes interest in a piece of
>freeware, you might as well kiss it goodbye, because they're gonna hoard
>it, piss all over it, and spoil it.
>
>These two ideas are dangerous. They're dangerous, not because they're
>false, but rather because they're both partly true, and you're afraid that
>they might be totally true. But a year and a half ago, I began to suspect
>that they didn't actually need to be true. I'm even surer of that today
>than I was then. I'm here to tell you that we can at least begin to think
>about negotiating a cease-fire between the commercial world and the
>freeware world.
>
>I want to tell you to put aside your fears and your preconceptions, and
>help us do something new. A new model of cooperation is emerging. A new
>breed of entrepreneurs is arising that understands the dynamics of the
>freeware community.
>
>There has to be a new, intermediate model in which the freeware community
>does what it is good at, and the commercial community does what it is good
>at (apart from screwing people), and both communities are better off for
>having cooperated with each other. If you believe that's impossible, then
>you can stop listening now, and go out into the hallway, and start fighting
>with each other.
>
>If you believe in evolutionary metaphors as I do, then perhaps you can see
>that not all relationships have to be predatorial or parasitical. How 'bout
>let's evolve a symbiotic relationship instead. We really do need to learn
>to depend on each other. Believe it or not, there are things that the
>freeware community cannot do well. Believe it or not, there are things that
>the commercial community cannot do well. But we can do those things for
>each other.
>
>Before we get to the theological metaphor, I should first state for the
>record that I am not very religious about free software, per se. Ethically,
>of course, I believe that if someone gives something away, nobody else
>should be trying to make a quick buck on it. And if you ever feel like
>that's happening to you, you have the right to squawk -- and squawk loudly.
>
>But I do not fundamentally believe that information wants to be free.
>Rather, I believe that information wants to be valuable. Now, providing
>information for free is one way of increasing its value to you, the
>consumer. But I'm not a communist when it comes to information, and if
>we're to build an information economy, then information must have some
>value to me, the producer.
>
>The theological metaphor I want to leave you with is simply that it is
>better to give than to receive. In western culture, we tend to value a
>person by what they have acquired. Instead, we really ought to emulate the
>American Indians of the Pacific Northwest, who invented what they called
>"potlatch." In that culture, you were valued not by what you acquired, but
>rather by what you gave away. But please note: You have to get it first to
>give it away. We can give things away because we've invested our time and
>money, and often our company's time and money, and we've produced something
>of value. Only if we have the fundamental right to own information do we
>also have the fundamental right to give information away, freely and
>without coercion. Simply because we want to, not because we have to.
>
>
>
>
>Web Review copyright © 1998 Songline Studios, Inc. Web Techniques and Web
>Design and Development copyright © 1998 Miller Freeman, Inc. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED
>
>
>==========================================
>
>

Well Heather, good friend, as always.   I didn't snip anything in case your 
post would get missed.  {Sorry for the bandwidth}
A meaningful post you did, and I read it-- AND the URL you cite.

I think that this attitude is not only noble, but correct.  What's the alternative?
Play "close rules" because my BSD is better than your "GPL" or BeOS or 
Mac or VMS or OS400 or OS/2 or NT or....?

When we get into too much posturing about "differentiating" this and 
that...my cars...my house...my material things...my intellectual
property...my religious beliefs...so adamantly...we're not gonna make 
substantive progress to embetter or ameliorate these conflicts, and our 
kids will become confused into the next few decades...and they'll not 
be able to think on their own.  What's a better investment then?  Tell me.

Now, I watched a PBS show recently about the history of Hawaii.  It,
like other visions of "American" native history makes these current issues 
of proprietary ownership pale in comparison with our current software 
monopoly debates.  Kinda boils down to who's gonna be "king of the 
mountain".  I expect that these issues will fade eventually, perhaps not
always equitably, but I would hope more gracefully so than past human
experiences, and that the product of such will not be so one-sided.  It
*could* happen.  Lemme just say that these issues on this thread are not
trivial.

I know this:   In the '90s now, like periodically returning fashions, the rough 
part of yesteryear's harsh mercantilism is definitely flourishing, "tough"
business attitudes are back, and I'm truly glad we have child labor laws.

</pontificating [off]>

I just try to keep a "big view" of stuff on this thread.

I've not personally talked with or deeply read about these specific 
issues with Richard Stallman, or with Mr. Wall, to get their direct 
philosophy.

But my guess is, is that their intentions are honorable toward folks that
wanted to write software without losing recognition, whether they make
money on it or not.  That's not a sin, with or without any legal disposition
on it.

Freeware, shareware and commercial-ware in the software biz should not
have to be incompatible with each other.  However, it certainly becomes so
when someone wants more than anyone else.

I guess my point is that we all need to make a living; and I also think that
that neither precludes charitability nor basic recognition.

Best,

Erick