Re: Signs You are Arguing with a Religionist (GPL)

[Brett Glass <brett@lariat.org>]

At 05:55 PM 3/8/99 -0500, Eric Bennett wrote:
 
>> Well, they're going to have the Stallman talk. And they're going to
>> have people there from Microsoft. Shouldn't someone be there to
>> present the case of the little guy in the middle?
>
>I would have to know exactly what Stallman is going to talk about before
>answering that.  If he's going to walk in and say, "All commercial
>software must be destroyed!" then I would agree with you...

I know Richard, and this is what he will say. He always, always harps 
away on the string that all software must be "free." (Alas, his definition
of "free" doesn't include reuse by his commercial colleagues.) It's his 
message and his mission. I've been talking a great deal about this 
issue in this particular forum, but I'm by no means a "one-string
fiddle" as Richard is.

>I'm also interested in what the Microsoft folks are going to talk
>about.  It seems that one of the premises of this conference is that
>remedies are needed.  I think it would not be helpful to have Microsoft
>walk in and spew its silly spiel about how it has totally and thoroughly
>demolished the DOJ's case and thus there is no need for any remedy and
>how CPT is being grossly unjust for even daring to consider the
>possibility of remedies. 

Can they say much else? They are backed into a corner from a rhetorical 
and legal standpoint. Anything they say that falls outside the "box" drawn 
by previous court rulings can and WILL be used against them, and they
know this. They will also, justifiably, feel as if they are in hostile
territory; they especially won't want to deviate from the schpiel in
that forum.

>> Remember, whatever remedies are imposed by a court, the Microsoft
>> problem won't be solved unless we reinvigorate the industry.
>
>True... there is the panel on consumer activities.  But if you want to
>go, I would say you should do so primarily to promote a good solution
>and not to bash Stallman for (what you view as) a bad one.

That's precisely what I have in mind. I would like to advocate solutions
which foster consumer choice and the rebirth of healthy competition.
I want to say, "I think that what we REALLY want is a middle ground."

>You seem to
>have a tendency to try to prove your point by arguing against his, which
>is not necessarily effective.  

Well, one thing that's unavoidable when one argues for some type of "middle
ground" is to point out why it works better than the various extremes.
If I've argued against Stallman's views, it's only because they represent
one of those extremes.

>Tim O'Reilly might be a reasonable person
>to provide a counter to Stallman.  He seems to be able to present a view
>similar to yours without being quite so infuriating.

I didn't find myself to be "infuriating" anyone when I spoke to these
issues in small groups at the LinuxWorld conference. Perhaps it's the
electronic medium that's lacking. Also, I've only really been flamed
by a few people here. Most of the other people seem to appreciate
what I'm saying or be more willing to "agree to disagree." (You seem
to be one of them, by the way.) I've gotten a lot of supportive private 
mail from folks who want to express support without becoming flame bait.

--Brett