Re: RMS's note to am-info regarding software development models...

[Eric Bennett <ericb@pobox.com>]

Ben Drasin wrote:
 
> It is only fair to note that the Government does already support
> software development (free and otherwise) by funding the University
> systems.  RMS is also an employee of MIT, after all.   Is anyone angry
> that money was taken from them "at the point of gun" for the purpose
> of developing Berkeley UNIX?  It strikes me as a small step to have
> the government directly fund some free software products.  Of course,
> no one is suggesting (well, at any rate I'm not) that this sort of
> funding should be the only means for software development.

I assume that proponents of a software tax think we are not currently
spending enough.  My question is, where do they draw the line?  You say
that you don't suggest funding all development this way... but can you
give a ballpark figure for how much you would fund this way?  That's all
I'm asking.  I'm not saying I wouldn't support it, because I still don't
even know exactly what's being proposed.

Personally, I could probably accept any increased funding that goes to
basic research.  But as I said before, I don't think the government
should be funding open source knockoffs of things like Word or Oracle's
database software.

-- 
Eric Bennett ( ericb@pobox.com ; http://www.pobox.com/~ericb )
Department of Chemistry, Cornell University
377 S.T. Olin Chemistry Lab

Mr. Gates needs a memory upgrade.
-Mitchell Pettit, Executive Director, ProComp