Question to Brett Glass

[Sylvain Petreolle]

 --- Brett Glass <brett at lariat.org> a écrit : >  
> Not true. I'm very much in favor of a truly free
> intellectual commons, and I'm very thankful for
> the existence of code such as BSD and Apache.
> But (L)GPLed code is neither open source nor
> "free." That the FSF says otherwise cannot 
> change this fact.

Would you say that Linux is not free ?

> 
> I do like some commercial products very much, and I
> like the companies that make them to make profits
> so that the products will continue to be improved.
> I like coding for a living, and I do not want the 
> FSF and its licenses to succeed in its agenda, which
> consists of wiping out all commercial software and
> destroying decent jobs for programmers.
> 
What could you say about Microsoft trying to destroy
the concurrence ? For example Netscape ?
A programmer can be paid even he makes free code.
And these are other commercial ways : distribution &
packaging services, on-line services...
If you say that companies distributing free software
are loosing money, look RedHat and consider : 
why is it not dead after years and years ?

> On the other hand, I strongly support the notions
> of fair use and the first sale doctrine, and I don't
> buy copy protected software. 
> 
> As for lawyers: Hiring them is sometimes a necessary
> 
> expense (for example, if you're negotiating a
> contract). But I wouldn't say that I "like" using
> them.
> 
 
> Anything that's GPLed throws a "monkey wrench" into
> the relevant market, and (if it's any good)
> eventually destroys all competition. GCC is  great
example.
> It's a mediocre compiler, but notably *better*
compilers
> the ones I need for some of the work I do -- are not
> selling.
> 
> GCC was one of the very first FSF projects. The
> others,
> as they progress, are beginning to have similar
> effects
> on the markets which they have invaded. The
> progression
> leads, inexorably, to the extinction of alternatives
> and
> the elimination of user choice.

>> Note that closed sources are slowing development.
> I disagree. 
In this case, qualify the time Linux has taken to
become as today. Windows took 20 years and so.

> 
> >> In short, Stallman urges programmers to sabotage
> >> their employers' IP --
> >> by injecting GPLed code into it -- so that it
> must
> >> be given away.

> Yes. And the purpose of the GPL is to poison the
> well of truly free software that existed long before
> Stallman founded the FSF. That ecology was balanced.
> The GPL injects a "poison pill" designed to destroy
> the commercial players, destroying the delicate
> symbiosis between commercial and freely available
software.
It's not destruction, it's only the competition 


___________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!? -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français !
Yahoo! Mail : http://fr.mail.yahoo.fr