Richard Stallman wrote:
>
> The GNU/Linux system is pretty large. For that matter, GCC and Linux
> are pretty large. So I think you're simply underestimating what we
> can do ethically, as an excuse for doing it the usual grabbing way.
>
Indeed. And the important large like gcc and glibc have substantial
corporate sponsorship without which they would be dead in the water.
Grabbing from the grabbers?
>
> Meanwhile, people have already pointed out that there are ways to
> raise money for some kinds of free software projects. From what I
> hear about game product cycles, you might be able to make the game
> free after a year without losing much in sales.
>
So If I spend $X developing my game and then sell it closed with the
stated intention of opening the source as soon as it has recouped a
reasonable return on my investment, this would get your official seal of
approval?
But isn't this exactly what Andre has been lambasted for? Perhaps you
should step in and say a few words in his defence.
> But if that doesn't work for you, I would not consider it a great loss
> for the world if your products were not produced. They contribute
> something to the world if they are free software, but otherwise not.
Perhaps not. But my 40 software developing staff are still going to be
mightily pissed when I don't make payroll.
Richard, you started out with some noble priciples, but seem to have
become a little confused somewhere along the way. The 'Don Quixote'
hacker knight ;)
On Mon, Jan 06, 2003 at 11:52:05PM +0000, Andrew Walrond wrote:
> >But if that doesn't work for you, I would not consider it a great loss
> >for the world if your products were not produced. They contribute
> >something to the world if they are free software, but otherwise not.
>
> Perhaps not. But my 40 software developing staff are still going to be
> mightily pissed when I don't make payroll.
Given that 90% of software development is reinventing the wheel (badly),
perhaps 36 of them could move on to a career doing something useful.
--
"Love the dolphins," she advised him. "Write by W.A.S.T.E.."
So If I spend $X developing my game and then sell it closed with the
stated intention of opening the source as soon as it has recouped a
reasonable return on my investment, this would get your official seal of
approval?
Not quite. We can't count on this to result in free software.
1. An open source program may or may not be free software. I'd have
to know what license you would use, and be sure it was a free software
license, in order to expect that this would produce free software.
(See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-software-for-freedom.html.)
2. There's no time limit. "As soon as it has recouped a reasonable
return" could mean years from now, or never. As a result, even if you
specify a specific free software license that you will use, we still
can't count on this to make the package free software in any
reasonable time.
If these two points were suitably changed, this becomes a plan that I
might recommend to you if you were otherwise going to keep the
software non-free and there were no better possibility. However, I
could not recommend actually using the software while it is non-free.
But isn't this exactly what Andre has been lambasted for? Perhaps you
should step in and say a few words in his defence.
I don't know what Andre plans to do. I find it difficult to read
those messages--every sentence seems to have various interpretations.
Maybe it violates the GPL, maybe it doesn't. Maybe it falls within
the permission that the Linux developers have given for non-free
modules. It seems to concern protocols I don't know anything about.
Since the issue does not concern the FSF directly, I don't need to try
to figure it out. I am leaving the issue to others.
Perhaps not. But my 40 software developing staff are still going to be
mightily pissed when I don't make payroll.
In a capitalist system, creation and loss of jobs are normal.
Unemployment is normal too--and the level of unemployment is
controlled by macroeconomic factors. To employ 40 people in one
particular way cannot justify making a program non-free.
It is impossible to tell whether a world of free software would
provide more employment or less employment. There is too much
that we do not know.
On Tue, 2003-01-07 at 13:44, Richard Stallman wrote:
> So If I spend $X developing my game and then sell it closed with the
> stated intention of opening the source as soon as it has recouped a
> reasonable return on my investment, this would get your official seal of
> approval?
>
> Not quite. We can't count on this to result in free software.
>
> 2. There's no time limit. "As soon as it has recouped a reasonable
> return" could mean years from now, or never. As a result, even if you
> specify a specific free software license that you will use, we still
> can't count on this to make the package free software in any
> reasonable time.
So if he specifies a specific future license (eg GPL, just to simplify
things) and indicates what 'reasonable return' is (eg "a sale of 8,000
licenses" or some such) that would be ok......
> If these two points were suitably changed, this becomes a plan that I
> might recommend to you if you were otherwise going to keep the
> software non-free and there were no better possibility. However, I
> could not recommend actually using the software while it is non-free.
....but you'd recommend that people not have the freedom to make their
own price/value decisions AND (added bonus) actively work to PREVENT it
ever becoming GPL'd.
User: "This [game/driver/database/...] is exactly what I need, and its
only $50! Its worth way more than that to me, this rules."
RMS: "Sorry, you're not allowed to buy that. Just wait until it becomes
free, then its all yours."
User: "Um.. ok. I need it pretty soon, and $50 is a great deal; it would
cost me at least $2k and time I don't have to recreate it from scratch.
When will it be free so I can use it?"
RMS: "Well... when a bunch of people piss me off and go buy it."
....
Heh. Hehehehe. So we're back to the "software developers are evil and
should all starve to death" stance. Nifty. Thank [insert diety here]
that you are working so hard to destroy your reputation; I'd hate to see
the number of people following your edicts actually increasing..