Message 00299 [Homepage] [Navigation]
Thread: oxenT00265 Message: 11/54 L5 [In index]
[First in Thread] [Last in Thread] [Date Next] [Date Prev]
[Next in Thread] [Prev in Thread] [Next Thread] [Prev Thread]

Re: Defintion of exchange (was: [ox-en] RE: Open Money?)




Hi Kermit!

Kermit Snelson wrote:
Richard Stallman himself has denied that Free Software is based on
"unidirectional flows."  In an article called "Pragmatic Idealism", he
argues that the GPL is in fact explicitly designed to force the users of
free software to compensate its creators with free software in return:

Has he really? "To force the *users* of free software to *compensate its
creators* with free software *in return*?" If I want to use free
software, first I have to write some other piece of free software so
I'll be allowed to use the first piece?

Even if he had, the GPL would of course not live up to this standard:

   Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are
   not covered by this License; they are outside its scope. The act
   of running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the
   Program is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on
   the Program (independent of having been made by running the
   Program). Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

Considering what you quoted, I can only suppose you are refering to the
following part of the quote:

The GNU GPL is designed to make an
inducement from our existing software:  "If you will make your software
free, you can use this code."  Of course, it won't win 'em all, but it wins
some of the time.

But "you can use this code" is not using the program. So your statement
would at least have to be re-phrased as "to force the *programmers of
derivative works* of free software to compensate its creators with free
software in return." But again I don't think that's what he's saying
(and it's certainly not what I believe to be desirable, but that's off
the point). I think from Stallman's writing it's pretty clear that he
thinks everybody who publishes software should publish it as free. In
the above quote, I understand him as saying that the GPL is designed to
make more people publish software as free, because all people should.
Thus this is not compensation for the original authors, but trying to
make more people act the way Stallman considers right.

Also compensation would mean the original creators did something
unpleasant and they have to be compensated for it. Maybe some feel it's
this way, but I'm sure the GPL was not explicity designed to meet this
goal. (Rather, as I said, to spread the idea of free software to benefit
all; this means the creators of the program in question, too, but not
more or less than anybody else.)

Do you really understand Stallman differently in what you quoted? If so,
could you explain why?

- Benja
_______________________
http://www.oekonux.org/


Thread: oxenT00265 Message: 11/54 L5 [In index]
Message 00299 [Homepage] [Navigation]