Re: Tocqueville on open source development

[James Love <love@cptech.org>]

Brett Glass wrote:
> 
> At 08:47 PM 11/7/98 -0500, James Love wrote:
> 
> >Eric Bennett said that Stallman "suggests replacing all (or perhaps
> >even the majority of) commercial software with government-written
> >software funded by a software tax."
> >
> >    1.   Government written software?  I don't think Stallman said
> >this?  Prove it.
> 
> I don't make unfounded assertions. Stallman has said -- not once
> but quite a few times -- that a software tax should be levied and
> the proceeds given to the NSF for the development of GPLed software.
> He reiterated this to me over lunch about four or five years ago in
> San Jose. (Actually, *I* ate lunch; Richard just held forth. ;-)
> 

    Brett, the "unfounded assertions" I was referring to the 2 points.

  With regard to (1) from above.  Would the NSF be funding "government
written" software with the proceeds"? The NSF funds the development of
lots of software, but mostly be non-government sources, including
universities.  Funded is one thing.  Written by the government is
another.  If someone says that Stallman favors the government writing
software, and he did not say that, it isn't true and it isn't fair.  It
is a distinction that is important to me and most people.

   With regard to the second point by Eric, which he has since
withdrawn, where does Stallman say he wants to replace all or most of
commercial software?  If he didn't say that, then it isn't true, and it
is unfair to him.  I recognize he advocates some government support, but
Eric originally took this several steps further than some. 


> >  Just because you don't like someone's ideas doesn't mean you can put
> >words in their mouth and then ridicule things they did not say.   I'll
> >take all this back if you can produce a quote where Stallman says the
> >things you say he says.  If you can't, then you should take it back.
> 
> See my subsequent message, which must have crossed in the ether with
> yours. As you'll see from it and from the document I reference there, he
> has not only said these things -- he has posted them on the Web for the
> world to see. It may be hard for some who do not know him to believe that
> he goes this far.  But then, Richard himself admits that his views are
> extreme.

   Post to the list the language where he says that the government
should fund the development of government written software that would
eliminate all or most commerical software.  

    Lots of people think the government should subsidize the development
of free software.  That's how the Internet was created, and that is how
much of the distance education tools are developed.  Ever hear of
Internet II??  Lots of well known and widely respected people backed
Internet II also.  It involves, guess what, taxpayer funded software
development.

  Jamie

-- 
James Love, Director, Consumer Project on Technology
P.O. Box 19367, Washington, DC 20036, v202.386.8030 f202.234.5176
http://www.cptech.org, mailto:love@cptech.org