Re: Linux... OK but definitely second best

[Kendall Clark <kclark@superfly.ntlug.org>]

Gosh, Brett, I'd love to get into another pointless 'dialogue' with you
about how terrible the GPL is for business, but, with all the work
I have to do these days making money from all that bad GPL software,
I just don't have time to debate with you.

I and my company make very good money every day with lots of bad, old
GPL-encumbered code.

That's a lot more fun than arguing with someone with whom I don't even
share a common definition of as basic a term as 'free'.

Best,

	Kendall Clark

PS -- It's a wonder that the bank will even cash my paycheck since making
money from GPL software is so impossible... Will wonders never cease?

On Mon, Jul 27, 1998 at 08:15:13PM -0400, Brett Glass wrote:
>At 04:47 PM 7/26/98 -0400, you wrote:
>
>>What Brett never fails to misconstrue or to ignore is that different
>>licenses are good for different ends. The GPL and the BSD license don't try
>>to accomplish the same goal, so I'm hard pressed to say that one is better
>>than the other. 
>
>I disagree. The only difference in the "ends" of the two licenses
>is that the GPL seeks to encumber software -- in Richard Stallman's own words,
>to make it "less free." The purpose: to make the software the exclusive province 
>of one community of developers and prevent others, who are engaged in important
>innovation and entrepreneurship, from using it. This is never good.
>
>>It is conceivable that FreeBSD is better than Linux technically, though I
>>tend to think the differences are very minor since they are both so much
>>better than NT.
>
>I find that it's much better technically. The development process is less
>chaotic and far more methodical, and is subject to much more scrupulous
>peer review.
>
>>But to claim that FreeBSD is better than Linux because of its license is
>>either intentionally misleading or just clumsy. 
>
>Again, I must disagree. The BSD license is better in all cases, since the
>GPL's sole purpose is to reserve power for one specific faction (more below).
>
>>I want to insure that the software I give away doesn't get used by
>>businesses who don't help me develop it, 
>
>Just because they don't publish the source does NOT mean they're not
>helping you to develop. Friendly competition between open source
>and commercial software drives both to higher quality levels and
>promulgates many good ideas.
>
>>PS -- I suspect, though not really in Brett's case, that many BSD advocates
>>are a bit perturbed at what they see as Linux's undeserved success. My motto
>>is "the enemy of my enemy is my friend." 
>
>To say that the purpose of open source software is to "defeat Microsoft" is 
>to cheapen the effort and reduce it to an act of spite. ("If I can't be as rich as
>Bill Gates, I don't want him to be able to make money selling software either. 
>Nyaah.") Our goal should be to LEVEL the playing field, not to tilt it against
>any one player -- even if many people hate that player very much.
>
>The GPL does not do that. Its purpose is essentially to make one faction -- 
>the Free Software Foundation -- the "next Microsoft," with undue control over 
>the majority of open source software. What's more, it seeks to tilt the playing
>field away from ALL commercial software vendors.... Not a good plan. Commercial
>and free software can, and should, always coexist.
>
>In an earlier message, Jamie expressed concern that open source software could 
>be "monopolized" too. Well, it can -- and the GPL is the mechanism via which this 
>particular faction seeks to do it. As the song so brilliantly puts it: "Meet the 
>new boss.... Same as the old boss." The "revolutionaries" of the FSF are attempting
>to fool us again.
>
>--Brett
>

-- 
--
Let me die in my footsteps before I go down under the ground.
--
Kendall G. Clark, kclark@cmpu.net	theologian, philosopher, Linux freak