"Open" Software Foundation: GNU

[der Mouse]

In article <5910001 at hplsla.HP.COM>, jima at hplsla.HP.COM (              Jim Adcock) writes:

> Well, as long as we're complaining about naming conventions, how
> about complaining about "Free Software Foundation" ???

> Free means Free.

> Free does not mean you have an obligation to send someone bucks.

You don't.  You can get a copy of GNUware from anywhere you find it,
with no obligation to send money to anyone as far as the FSF is
concerned.

> Free does not mean that you are forced to buy into someone else's
> political/economic philosophies before one is allowed to use his/her
> software.

You aren't.  I don't have to agree with RMS's notions about software
and economics to use GNU Emacs, for example.

> Free does not mean you're going to threaten to sue the ass off anyone
> who says or does something you don't like.

Who's been threatening such?

> Free does not mean you take someone else's software that was given to
> you without restriction, and add your own licensing restrictions.

If 'twas really given to you without restrictions, then you can
distribute with added restrictions.  Of course, other distribution
channels may make identical software available without those added
restrictions, but that's irrelevant.

But that's all beside the point, because most of the GNUware was either
produced expressly for GNU or was given to RMS in the expectation that
it would go into GNU, and with the understanding that this would imply
that distribution of it would carry GNU redistribution conditions.

> Free means free.

...haven't we heard this somewhere before?  "Free" seems to have
shifted from the "price zero" meaning to the meaning that gives us
"freedom" as a related word.  Fine, as long as we recognize that it's
happening....

> Free means being able to speak your honest mind without having to
> consult with a lawyer first.

> Free means being able to speak your honest mind without having the
> one you're talking about sending his/her lawyer to come talk to you.

What's this got to do with GNU?  "Normal" commercial vendors are much
closer to being this sort of spectre because of non-disclosure and
trade secret and all that.

> Free means being able to charge a buck for one's efforts, if one
> feels the marketplace is willing to pay you a buck for those efforts.

This is the only point I feel RMS is going too far on: he's trying to
force everyone else into his mold.  I agree with his ideals, more or
less, but I resist being forced into any molds, even when I sort of
like the shape.

He's not going very far in that direction, fortunately.  I can, for
example, use GNU Emacs to write a program and then proceed to use that
program in any way I please, including selling it with restrictive
license agreements.  (This is based on a reading of the GNU Emacs
license approximately five minutes ago.  If you have read that license
and disagree, feel free to explain in what way I have erred.)

However, gcc appears to be different.  I don't have the gcc license on
hand at the moment, but if it's as similar to the emacs license as I
expect, a good case could be made that anything compiled with gcc (or
*certainly* anything linked with the gcc-distribution library routines)
cannot be distributed for-profit or otherwise contrary to Richard's
ideals as embodied in the license.  Sorry, but I can't live with that.
Not that I want to make megabucks off my programs (though I wouldn't
object to it! :-); in fact I've posted some of my software to the net
and would post more if it weren't for all the local library routines.
I just resist being told I *have* to do it that way.

> Free means being able to put one ideas in the public domain, if that
> is what one chooses to do, for the betterment of all man-kind,
> without restriction, to do with as they might.

What's this got to do with the FSF?

					der Mouse

			uucp: mouse at mcgill-vision.uucp
			arpa: mouse at larry.mcrcim.mcgill.edu