Re: Linux... OK but definitely second best

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Brett Glass wrote:

> 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.


	The people who do the GPL software are every bit as hard working and
smart as the people who make software with a profit motive in mind. 
They are entitled to attach conditions to their software.  Why is it
"good" for a proprietary copyright that restricts reuse, because we love
profit making enterprises so much, but "bad" for developers to dedicate
the fuits of their labor to the general community of programers and
users?  

   [snip]

> 
> 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).

    Brett, I don't see how you can be more one sided than this.  "better
in *all* cases" ???    Is this the same as better because it is defined
to be better?   This "one specific faction" stuff seems a bit bitter. 
Aren't these people using their own private property in the way that
they are entitled to?  Even if some software firms are unhappy about the
restrictions, it doesn't mean the GPL restrictions are not rationale or
appropriate. 

	Not everyone shares your opinion on the dangers of embrace and extend
strategies, and after watching what MS is trying to do to Web protocols,
who can dissmiss the danagers?

    [snip]

> 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. 

    This is plainly wrong.  THe FSF doesn't even control the
distribution of its own software, and it clearly doesn't control Linus
Torvald.  Even Linus doesn't control access to Linux anymore.  He shares
the copryight with 50 or so developers who have made various
contributions, and everyone one of them would have to agree before the
license was changed in a significant way.

>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.
>

     Not true in reality, as the rash of commercial announcements for
Linux products demonstrates.  Heck, some of the Linux Windows manager
programs are not subject to GPL, and much of the software that is used
in the Linux distributions comes from a variety of licensing schemes.

	Everyone was very happy when Corel and Oracle made their linux
announcements.  


 
> 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.


       Except, they aren't bosses.  Brett, for all your bitterness
toward Richard Stallman, how many shots do you think he calls in Linux
development?  The people calling the shots are the people who write the
code.  For once.

	You don't have to be a communist to appreciate a little non-commerical
space in your life.  I think the Internet, which is based upon open
public domain standards and no "ownership" of the net itself, shows how
our lives can be enriched by public infrastructure.


    Jamie