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

[Richard Stallman <rms gnu org>]

    Every once in a while, one should look at what our overall goals are.

The overall goal of the Free Software Movement, in which GNOME was
launched, is that software should be free--that all computer users
should have the freedom to share and change the software they use.

Developing good and useful free software is one major aspect of
achieving this goal.  Teaching people to recognize non-free software
as an invitation to surrender their freedom is the other major aspect.

It's normal to to focus on one aspect, while others do the other.  The
whole job is too big for one person, anyway.  However, sometimes you
may come across a way to work on one aspect that actually impedes the
other aspect.  It looks like a good idea, if you think narrowly, but
when considered broadly it isn't one.

For instance, to publish or recommend non-free software to the public
is telling people that non-free is legitimate, and that works directly
against teaching them to reject it.

In the long run, all free software will be more successful, and
receive more support, when people have learned to view a non-free
program as a dangerous trap.

    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.

To accept money for a good cause from people who develop non-free
software is ok, as long as you do it without endorsing that
development.  It's better for this money to be in the hands of the FSF
or the GNOME Foundation than if they had kept it.

To participate directly in developing non-free software is a different
matter entirely.


Finally, to clarify a side issue:

    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."

This is not so.  The GNU GPL is based on copyright law, and some
people refer to copyright law using the vague and biased term
"intellectual property", but that's their idea, not ours.  See
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/words-to-avoid.html for more
explanation.