Re: The "free software community" does not include Linus

[Fabrizio Polacco <fpolacco@icenet.fi>]

Hamish Moffatt wrote:
> 
> I'd be interested to know how the free software idea came about.

Software has always been free. Algorithms (think of them as "theorical
software") are considered ideas (except in USA where they can be
patented, but not copyrighted).

Instead you'd be interested to know how the non-free software idea came
about: 
Cui prodest? Who have a benefit? 
Not users that, having paid, are hurted by additional restrictions.
Not developers, who can't reuse the work of other developers.
Not distributors and sellers, whose commerce is pushed by competition
and not by monopoly.
Only the middlemen, those who sit between users and developers, stoling
money from both sides. And not only money. We all know of one middelman
who steals from developers telling users he made, and steals from users
telling developers what and how to make.


> While I like the Free Software world domination stories, those same
> ideals could put me out of a job .. :-)

This is a common concern, IMO more due to a misunderstanding of the
matter.
Are you working as a middleman? If so, better you change your job :-)

Jokes apart, the real problem is in an "establishment" that thinks that
"this" is the one and only way to do software.
The free software model (I mean that described by esr, not the model
used by rms and FSF, which is the usual old method) needs a direct
contact between users and developers. The plural is mandatory. The more
users and the more developers there are, the best the result.
The problem is the communication. Internet could be the solution. But
users are still really rare here. Some of them are beginning surfing the
www, but only this, in a passive way. Most of them aren't able to send
and receive email. Mailing lists and Usenet are behind their
immagination.


> So why are we willing to give our software away?

Who is "giving away" _his_ software?
First you should reconsider the use of that pronoun.
Do you really think that exists someone who can write a non trivial
program without using the "work" of the developers who came before him?
And what about the impossibility that a single man can write a really
complex software (like a full OS, for example).

Software is a "collective" work where each developer is continuosly
reusing the past and present "art" of other developers, without even
knowing them.
To use the work of another one you need to extend him the right of the
final result. And when you don't know the "full" list of the developers
whose work you're using, then you have to grant those rights to _all_
the developers.

In fact, do you really think that Microsoft people, when recently they
added TCP/IP to their products, didn't used _any_ part of Berkeley's
original code? I think this would have been impossible, or at least
impractical.

And when you don't want that some cunning use your "art" without paying
you with part of the rights on the result, then you use a license that
put this in strong words.

Therefore, using GPL to license your Free Software is simply the way you
should protect your rights for the future use of your work without
abusing the rights of the developers whose work was used by you.

If you call this "giving away".


Fabrizio
-- 
| fpolacco@icenet.fi    fpolacco@debian.org    fpolacco@pluto.linux.it
| Pluto Leader - Debian Developer & Happy Debian 1.3.1 User - vi-holic
| 6F7267F5 fingerprint 57 16 C4 ED C9 86 40 7B 1A 69 A1 66 EC FB D2 5E



--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-private-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .