Subject: Re: Why is Nvidia given GPL'd code to use in non-freedrivers?
From: Edward Kuns <ekuns@kilroy.chi.il.us>
To: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Cc: Edward Kuns <ekuns@kilroy.chi.il.us>
Content-Type: text/plain
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Date: 09 Jan 2003 10:36:24 -0600
Message-Id: <1042130184.1944.44.camel@kilroy.chi.il.us>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 4437
Lines: 87

Richard Stallman (rms at gnu.org) said:
> 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.

Richard, you have stated eloquently and perhaps completely the divide
between the FSF and the supporters of the Open Software movement.  You
have also stated quite eloquently the exact reason that an Open Software
movement exists.

You presume to speak to what is moral and ethical for everybody.  You
speak as if your definition of "free" is the dictionary definition of
"free."  You speak as if you alone (and those who fully toe your line)
can decide what brings value to the world.

Wow.

I, for one, put my money where my mouth is.  I am squarely in the Open
Software movement.  I support (with money) NVidia, Code Weavers, and in
the past, 4 Front Technologies, for example.  If I were a commercial
entity in need of the technologies that Andre brings to the table, I
would gladly support his company by purchasing non-free (by your
definition) products.  Note:  I refused to purchase NVidia graphics
cards before the time when they released version 1.0 of their drivers. 
If they ever stopped supporting their Linux drivers, I would immediately
stop purchasing their hardware.  I vote with my wallet.

*I* get to decide what brings value to me and what I consider to be
freedom.  Richard, you don't get to define those values for me or for
anybody else except those who *choose* to agree with your narrow
definitions.

It is true that the GNU model works for *many* large software projects. 
This does not mean that it will work for *all* large software projects. 
You agree with this and then say that the world would be better off by
not having those products because they would have been done in the
"usual grabbing way."

Richard, you *do* understand why people compare your views to Communism,
right?  I'm not saying such opinions are accurate or inaccurate, but
Communism advocates public ownership of *all* property and you advocate
public ownership of *all* software.  IMO, that is the core of the
comparison that people make and you MUST already understand that, right?

(OK, you don't advocate public ownership of software that is developed
but never distributed.  Most software that concerns people in this arena
is software that is distributed, so that point is irrelevant to this
discussion.  No-one here is talking about such software.)

I am glad that people are willing to produce "non-free" (by your
definition) software.  I don't even always prefer "free" software to
"non-free" software.  (quotes to indicate the FSF definition of "free"
is being used.)  I evaluate each case, taking all options into account,
and then choose what best fits my needs.  To me, THAT is freedom.  We
would have substantially less freedom if the GNU project never existed,
and I acknowledge and thank all from the GNU project for their
contributions, past and present and future.  HOWEVER.  We would also
have substantially less freedom if *all* distributable software was
required to be GPL.  (Lack of quotes to indicate that I am NOT using the
FSF definition.)

This is my opinion but also the opinion of many here.  Richard, you are
not going to change people's views on this.  The Open Source movement
doesn't exist just because people hadn't thought "freedom" through
completely yet.  It exists, in part at least, because people rejected
the FSF definition of "freedom" after fully considering the issue.

       Eddie

P.S.  In the interests of moving off-topic conversions off the list, I
will not publicly respond to any replies or any more of this thread.  I
*will* privately respond to any replies, whether they are posted only to
me or also to the list.  I just wanted to speak up once so that my
silence could not possibly be construed by RMS or others as agreement. 
If you wish a response from me, you must CC: me as I am not subscribed
to this list.

-- 
  Eddie Kuns  |  Home: ekuns@kilroy.chi.il.us
--------------/  URL:  (none at the moment)
  "Ah, savory cheese puffs, made inedible by time and fate."  -- The
Tick
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/