Re: Free software business models (was: Evolution copyright assignment: Storm in a teacup)

[George <jirka 5z com>]

On Fri, Aug 13, 2004 at 11:15:11AM -0400, Richard Stallman wrote:
> All else being equal, it's good to develop more software faster.  We
> are all aware that non-free software can be profitable.  To someone
> who views respect for others' freedom as an ethical imperative, this
> would not justify developing non-free software.

Every once in a while, one should look at what our overall goals are.  My
goal at least in joining GNOME was wider acceptance of free software, the
ability of all people to use computers and finally facilitating a free flow
of information.  Freedom in what people do with their software is obviously
an overall goal that achieves the above three in this particular case of
software.  (Obviously goals differ from person to person)

Second my belief, and this probably differs from what most other people's
beliefs, is that I don't believe in anything called "intellectual property."
I can't understand how one can own an idea in the same way one can own a set
of underpants.  I assume, Richard, that this is more or less your belief as
well.  And herein lies my argument.

We should look at how we're achieving these goals.  Firstly we have something
called the GPL which I'm sure you're very familiar with.  The GPL is really
based on the idea of "intellectual property."  That is, I can write software
and have some sort of "rights" to my ideas.  And I can decide which freedoms
I give to others for my ideas.  Obviously GPL does not give complete freedom
to my ideas, just those freedoms that I deemed proper for achieving my goals.
Yes.  GPL is a compromise.  If I were a purist, I'd put my ideas in public
domain.  But I'm not.  I accept that there is a system within I have to
function.  So I use the GPL for stuff I write because I think that overall it
gets far closer to the ultimate goal then pursuing the ultimate goal
directly.

Now if Ximian/Novell does proprietary software, oh well.  It is not like
doing proprietary software is the same as mass murder.  If this results in
further acceptance of free software and further free flow of information,
then we ARE getting closer to our overall goals of software freedom rather
then further.  I would venture to guess that the vast majority of free
software (at least that which is actually usable, not the million one-weekend
projects on sourceforge) was written by/for companies who dabble in the
proprietary as well.  We are a lot closer to a widely accepted free software
world then we were a few years ago.

So in summary, even though I'm a free software weenie and myself would not
write/sell proprietary software, I can find no harm in someone doing that, as
long as their goal is making more and more usable free software.

So: GO MIGUEL GO!

George

PS: This of course doesn't mean that I will ever use or even recommend to
anyone any proprietary Novell software.

PS2: Damnit, I need to go do something productive ... This was a fun half an
hour of self-ego stroking.

PS3: There is no silliness nor any referrence to any dictatorship in the
above though there is the odd mass murder referrence.

PS4: This message is under public domain, feel free to twist and misquote my
words above for your own evil purposes.

-- 
George <jirka 5z com>
   Personally, I'm always ready to learn, although I do not
   always like being taught.
                       -- Sir Winston Churchill