Re: ``Nothing like a monopoly to get investors to cheer you on''

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>]

At 04:45 PM 11/9/98 -0500, Mitch Stone wrote:

>The more the 
>"benefits" of proprietary standardization are demonstrated to be 
>fallacious, the more difficult it will be for Microsoft to convince the 
>buying public that they're the only way to go. As far as I'm concerned, 
>every alternative cracks that wall.

In that case, I'm sure you'd agree that the more alternatives there are,
the better.

The trouble is, the effect of Linux -- in fact, the avowed purpose of the 
GPL according to RMS -- is to eliminate other alterinatives. We
have seen examples -- on this list -- of situations where Linux has drawn
venture capital away from potential alternatives. And where the GPL has
prevented individuals from basing new alternatives on it.

This is the real problem with the GPL, you see. It takes -- in the form
of arguably predatory pricing -- but does not give back in the form of
code that's usable by those who want to create new alternatives. You
don't have to be a rabid zealot to see what this can lead to: less choice
for all of us.

I want as many choices as possible, and want to see creative entrepreneurs
flourish. Hence, I oppose not the concept of free software but rather the 
concept of free software whose source can't be exploited to create more 
alternatives -- commercial as well as free.

So, in fact, I think you'll agree that Linux and the GPL are actually
detrimental to what we both want: to maximize choice.

--Brett