Richard Stallman is responsible for the shrinking economy -- PART 3

Sure. Open Source, its care and feeding.

Thank you of posting PART3.

The discussion goes like this: Part 1 introduction theory to GPL, supporters haters and so on Part 2 sources of Richard Stallman data and real cases Part 3 conclusion

So I better get on with the conclusion

Thank you for taking the time to discuss this topic.

It becomes clear that there are parallels in the licensing issues as there is in many other life topics. The reason why we often argue so heatedly fall in one camp or the other and even joke that it is a religious war is because the founding ideas of GPL are of IDEALIST principles. These principle might sound nice, warm and fuzzy but we cannot say that they are fulfilled today. Commercial or =91proprietary=92 software is licence with REALIST principles and therefore the principle for the license agreement is so that it works for companies and organisations and business structures as they are formed today.

One is software trying to change the licensee and the other is licensee changing the software.

Since the founding spirit of GPL is to not let anyone profit on software and to give you neighbour (friend) a helping had I have termed any GPLed (or variety of GPL) software =91Charity-ware=92.

It is well known that in business the fundamental drivers for running an organisation for charity is a different set of drivers then for running one for profit or financial return to share/stake holders. They are often conflicting set of drivers so cannot invest in each other, however this does not mean that one cannot hire the other for service.

Sometime I wish that engineers would see that GPL does have it=92s place but it certainly not for every project. This kind of mentality and myopic is what makes engineers not progress to managers and gives the others a bad name! That is a topic that is very fundamental to me.

Interesting to read today by the editor of electronics weekly that almost 400,000 more engineers will be needed to carry through the sustainable energy and technology initiatives outlined in last week=92s UK Budget.

As much as I like the idea of Richard Stallman=92s =91charity ware=92 drive= n software world, today=92s UK government are requiring real engineering on real projects with real project leaders as they focus on cost effective solutions coping as government levels of debt increase and need payback. The UK government is aiming to provide its people with low carbon projects, housing carbon capture etc etc. Not to give every man woman and child access to the source code of general or poor performance software which isn=92t Microsoft.

I would say conservative, although that can be the same as realist depending on your ideals. ;)

Licenses depend on a status-quo where some customers are willing to accept them, but also where lawyers willing to fight for them and judges willing to rule in favour of them. Guess which idealism-controlled body controls these judges (by appointing them and/or by providing law for them).

FUD! You are allowed to profit.

Are you saying that the people asked to execute the work requested by a body which is controlled by IDEALIST parties and voted for by IDEALIST voters, cannot execute that work in an IDEALIST manner?

In that case, why is the FSF a registered charity?

What kind of strange leap of logic is that?

Robert

Well I skipped part 2 due to part one descending into favorititus of cc. Was it good?

Responsible: One able to respond, or be able to do something or account or be held to account for something. Sounds like a witch hunt.

cheers jacko

This is FUD. It may be somewhere between hard and impossible to profit from GPL'd software, but that's merely a side effect of being unable to restrict distribution, not a goal in and of itself.

Apparently, if you're not out to make a profit, you're a charity. You know, like IEEE.

-Jeff

I can understand being confused by non-profit versus charitable even if it is not a difficult distinction normally.

I couldn't understand what tortuous path of reason takes you from registered charity to you are not allowed to make a profit using GPL code. That strikes me as similar to arguing a farmer isn't allowed to make a profit at a Farmer's Market because the Farmer's Market is a registered charity. Makes no sense to me.

Robert

IANAL but I think "registered charity" is a nonsensical term. I think you can only be a registered non profit.

Enough of this vapid thread, I gotta get back to having a life...

-Jeff

It may depend on the jurisdiction, but the tax authorities seems to give it a meaning here.

Non-profit organization - Under the Income Tax Act, a non-profit organization is an association, club, or society operating exclusively for social welfare, civic improvement, pleasure, recreation, or any other purpose except profit. It is not a charity.

Registered charity - A registered charity means a charitable organization, public foundation, or private foundation that was established in Canada and is resident in Canada. It is operated for charitable purposes and must devote its resources to charitable activities. A registered charity has received a Registration Number from the Canada Revenue Agency and is exempt from paying tax on its revenue. It can issue donation receipts for gifts that it receives.

From

Robert

I agree that the founding ideas behind GPL and FSF are VERY idealist. But to argue that they are therefore inconsequential is a non sequitur. Some people even take them seriously enough to blame them for the shrinking economy, which to me sounds pretty consequential ;-)

As far as I can see, all that commercial licences (as distinct from commercially licensed software) have achieved is to maintain business structures that benefit companies writing commercially licensed software. This is good in and of itself only if you do not believe in what is hailed as "destructive innovation", i.e. capitalism. You know, adapt or go bankrupt.

The one transformational technology that can be said to have revolutionized the way people use computers is the internet. And it is hard to see how the internet could have happened without BSD Unix, i.e. open source software. Even I am old enough to remember that DECnet or AppleTalk were once perfectly valid alternatives to TCP/IP. Without open source, we would be having this conversation on top of a uucp network. Or come to think of it, maybe not, as even that was most likely based on open source...

I did not say that the ideas are inconsequential - they are useful in education I am sure. But the total ideal vision that ALL software is GPL is far from here (how big is Microsoft share on home PCs?)

Capitalism !=3D "destructive innovation". Complete FUD, proper tinfoil hat thinking.

Open source or BSD is not the same as GPL, the clue is in the name.

It seems that you are confusing open source with open standards.

This is your "conclusion" after reading the previous two threads? It sounds a great deal like a "conclusion" written by yourself before the threads were started in the first place.

About the only real valuable point you've made here is "Sometimes I wish that engineers would see that the GPL does have it's place, but it is certainly not for every project". Baring the "religious fanatics" (RMS...), every sensible open-source advocate understands that. It's the anti-GPL campaigners who have demonstrated a continued inability to understand the GPL and open source who fail to grasp that point.

"...inability to understand"? ROFL!

IMHO, that's sugar coating it a bit David.

My "conclusion" is that these threads are more of a troll or deliberate (failed) FUD/disinformation campaign.

However, in the interest of full disclosure, I would probably classified by bbb as an RMS loving communist GPL zealot... which is a pretty good guess ;)

... snip ...

This is just about the sanest entry in the whole thread. Something the anti-GPLers fail to realize is that open-source advocates have absolutely no objection to copyright and pay-for-me software, in fact they even encourage it. If you want to buy special rights to any of my own GPL licensed software, I will be happy to discuss it. In general, that purchase will enable you to keep your own software private.

And then there is the software I (and others) have released as 'public domain'. No restrictions whatsoever.

No, I really mean BSD Unix, not the TCP/IP specification. BSD Unix offered a plug-and-play way to join the internet, and provided the initial critical mass. Had there only been a spec for TCP/IP, I doubt it would have taken off the way it has. There would be much more vendor lock-in, like there used to be.

: "The 4.2BSD release in 1984 included TCP/IP networking, and the 4.3BSD release in 1986 included a Domain Name Server, expanding the number of sites able to implement Internet networking."