From: zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael Zeleny)
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss,talk.philosophy.misc
Subject: Re: Fund raising at the FSF
Date: 4 Jan 93 06:07:40 GMT
Article-I.D.: husc3.1993Jan4.010742.18980
Organization: The Phallogocentric Cabal

In article <C0B32v.2Br@comp.vuw.ac.nz> 
Michael.Norrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Michael Norrish) writes:

>>>>>> On 3 Jan 93 04:18:44 GMT, zeleny@husc10.harvard.edu (Michael
>>>>>> Zeleny) (MZ henceforth) said:

>MZ> In article <9301021752.AA25483@life.ai.mit.edu> tower@ai.mit.edu
>MZ> (Leonard H. Tower Jr.) writes:

>LT> FSF's employees are not slaves though.  They are all working for FSF
>LT> of their own free will.

>MZ> Sure they do.  And some slaves sold themselves into slavery of
>MZ> their own free will.  Like I say, I have no idea whether the above
>MZ> figure includes overhead, as it ought to; but regardless of that,
>MZ> the implied maximum figure is way below par for professional work,
>MZ> particularly when Stallman's original penny-pinching rationale of
>MZ> "they have to show that they are doing it for the idea" no longer
>MZ> applies as FSF is looking more and more like a conventional
>MZ> software company.

>For someone who has accused many other posters of petty rhetorical
>tricks, the paragraph above is pretty rich. 

Sez you.

>For a start, once sold into slavery, (whether that decision was one's
>own or not), a person no longer has the freedom that is guaranteed to
>all adults by law. The difference here is that the people working at
>the FDF continue to do so by their own free choice as well. They are
>not bound as a slave would be. 

Wage slavery is a peculiarly modern form of bondage.  But I accept the
charge of a petty rhetorical trick, notwithstanding my conviction
that, until the imminent abolition of the monetary system arrives in
this benighted land, all professional work ought to be compensated by
professional standards.

>The FSF is like a conventional software company? "More and more like"
>even? Well, let's see now, they do charge people money for a service
>they provide, (even if they misleadingly call it a distribution fee; I
>agree with Michael that it is a poor term), but there are not many
>software companies out there that have the source for their products
>available at no cost at ftp sites around the world. (Excluding the
>costs, if you want to be pedantic, inherent in the medium of
>transmission). What's more anybody is _free_ (there is that evil word
>again), to *use* the provided products without any restrictions on
>their use. Pick some 'conventional software companies', do they do
>this? Does Microsoft have the source for Windows available for ftp at
>their sites? Is Microsoft perhaps not a conventional software company?

This point has been made elsewhere, but since you are being civil, I
shall amplify: the terms of the GPL place an enormous restriction on
any professional use of GNU.  Whether or not you sympathize with
"software hoarding", is quite beside the point.  The only difference I
would effect in the GNU distribution policies, is changing the legal
constraint into a supererogatory request, providing an adequate venue
for consensual appropriation of source code.  If you wish to promote
free exchange of information, the last thing you should do is demand
that anyone who includes your information in his work, thereby assign
the ownership of the latter to yourself.

What exactly is the problem you have with the public domain?

>If I may be allowed a rhetorical flourish of my own: 
>      pull the other one!
>
>If the FSF feels that it is appropriate to establish legal restrictions
>on the potential future redistribution of the software to ensure that
>people remain free to use it, that is their privilege as owners of the
>software. 

Agreed.  But this proviso, in conjunction with their continued
trumpeting of freedom, amounts to hypocrisy of the worst sort.

It is a clear choice between freedom and restriction.  One has to go.

>Perhaps this overly caustic debate would subside if the term
>distribution fee was replaced by price?

Not a chance.  The crux of the issue is elsewhere.

>Michael.
>
>mnorrish@comp.vuw.ac.nz
>"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet."

cordially,
mikhail zeleny@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
Newsgroups: gnu.misc.discuss