linux unethical ?
Maximilian Ibel
A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the whole
GPL-stuff was unethical.
Although I am a very happy linux & GNU user, I could not convice him of the
deficiancy of his reasoning.
He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
(E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
employees.)
Of course this is a very naive point of view because
a) the potential "damage" is not very great, at the moment and
b) there is definitely the potential for new work (Think of the sellers of
linux-CD-ROMS).
My question now is: Is there any data which can statistically invalidate my
friends argument? (and no, he is not a anti-commie-maniac!)
Yours faithfully,
Maximilian
--
/ /
|__|
( ,, )
#--------------------------------------oOO--(__)--OOo----------------------#
| DG5NER@DB0BOX |"I am Brian!" |
|ibel@informatik. |"No, I am Brian and so is my wife!" |
| uni-wuerzburg.de | --- Monty Python, "The Life of Brian" |
#--------------------------------------------------------------------------#
Michael Griffith
Maximilian Ibel <ib...@cip.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote:
>Hello, world!
>
>A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the whole
>GPL-stuff was unethical.
>Although I am a very happy linux & GNU user, I could not convice him of the
>deficiancy of his reasoning.
>
>He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
>(E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
>of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
>employees.)
Your friend needs to read the GNU Manifesto:
Copyright (C) 1985 Richard M. Stallman
Permission is granted to anyone to make or distribute verbatim copies
of this document, in any medium, provided that the copyright notice and
permission notice are preserved, and that the distributor grants the
recipient permission for further redistribution as permitted by this
notice.
Modified versions may not be made.
The GNU Manifesto
*****************
The GNU Manifesto which appears below was written by Richard
Stallman at the beginning of the GNU project, to ask for
participation and support. For the first few years, it was
updated in minor ways to account for developments, but now it
seems best to leave it unchanged as most people have seen it.
Since that time, we have learned about certain common
misunderstandings that different wording could help avoid.
Footnotes help clarify these points.
For up-to-date information about the available GNU software,
please see the latest issue of the GNU's Bulletin. The list is
much too long to include here.
What's GNU? Gnu's Not Unix!
============================
GNU, which stands for Gnu's Not Unix, is the name for the complete
Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so that I can give it
away free to everyone who can use it.(1) Several other volunteers are
helping me. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are
greatly needed.
So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor
commands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator,
a linker, and around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is
nearly completed. A new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled
itself and may be released this year. An initial kernel exists but
many more features are needed to emulate Unix. When the kernel and
compiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU system
suitable for program development. We will use TeX as our text
formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We will use the free,
portable X window system as well. After this we will add a portable
Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other
things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually,
everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.
GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to
Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our
experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to
have longer file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system,
file name completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and
perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several
Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C
and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will
try to support UUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for
communication.
GNU is aimed initially at machines in the 68000/16000 class with
virtual memory, because they are the easiest machines to make it run
on. The extra effort to make it run on smaller machines will be left
to someone who wants to use it on them.
To avoid horrible confusion, please pronounce the `G' in the word
`GNU' when it is the name of this project.
Why I Must Write GNU
====================
I consider that the golden rule requires that if I like a program I
must share it with other people who like it. Software sellers want to
divide the users and conquer them, making each user agree not to share
with others. I refuse to break solidarity with other users in this
way. I cannot in good conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a
software license agreement. For years I worked within the Artificial
Intelligence Lab to resist such tendencies and other inhospitalities,
but eventually they had gone too far: I could not remain in an
institution where such things are done for me against my will.
So that I can continue to use computers without dishonor, I have
decided to put together a sufficient body of free software so that I
will be able to get along without any software that is not free. I
have resigned from the AI lab to deny MIT any legal excuse to prevent
me from giving GNU away.
Why GNU Will Be Compatible with Unix
====================================
Unix is not my ideal system, but it is not too bad. The essential
features of Unix seem to be good ones, and I think I can fill in what
Unix lacks without spoiling them. And a system compatible with Unix
would be convenient for many other people to adopt.
How GNU Will Be Available
=========================
GNU is not in the public domain. Everyone will be permitted to
modify and redistribute GNU, but no distributor will be allowed to
restrict its further redistribution. That is to say, proprietary
modifications will not be allowed. I want to make sure that all
versions of GNU remain free.
Why Many Other Programmers Want to Help
=======================================
I have found many other programmers who are excited about GNU and
want to help.
Many programmers are unhappy about the commercialization of system
software. It may enable them to make more money, but it requires them
to feel in conflict with other programmers in general rather than feel
as comrades. The fundamental act of friendship among programmers is the
sharing of programs; marketing arrangements now typically used
essentially forbid programmers to treat others as friends. The
purchaser of software must choose between friendship and obeying the
law. Naturally, many decide that friendship is more important. But
those who believe in law often do not feel at ease with either choice.
They become cynical and think that programming is just a way of making
money.
By working on and using GNU rather than proprietary programs, we can
be hospitable to everyone and obey the law. In addition, GNU serves as
an example to inspire and a banner to rally others to join us in
sharing. This can give us a feeling of harmony which is impossible if
we use software that is not free. For about half the programmers I
talk to, this is an important happiness that money cannot replace.
How You Can Contribute
======================
I am asking computer manufacturers for donations of machines and
money. I'm asking individuals for donations of programs and work.
One consequence you can expect if you donate machines is that GNU
will run on them at an early date. The machines should be complete,
ready to use systems, approved for use in a residential area, and not
in need of sophisticated cooling or power.
I have found very many programmers eager to contribute part-time
work for GNU. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would
be very hard to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not
work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this
problem is absent. A complete Unix system contains hundreds of utility
programs, each of which is documented separately. Most interface
specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contributor
can write a compatible replacement for a single Unix utility, and make
it work properly in place of the original on a Unix system, then these
utilities will work right when put together. Even allowing for Murphy
to create a few unexpected problems, assembling these components will
be a feasible task. (The kernel will require closer communication and
will be worked on by a small, tight group.)
If I get donations of money, I may be able to hire a few people full
or part time. The salary won't be high by programmers' standards, but
I'm looking for people for whom building community spirit is as
important as making money. I view this as a way of enabling dedicated
people to devote their full energies to working on GNU by sparing them
the need to make a living in another way.
Why All Computer Users Will Benefit
===================================
Once GNU is written, everyone will be able to obtain good system
software free, just like air.(2)
This means much more than just saving everyone the price of a Unix
license. It means that much wasteful duplication of system programming
effort will be avoided. This effort can go instead into advancing the
state of the art.
Complete system sources will be available to everyone. As a result,
a user who needs changes in the system will always be free to make them
himself, or hire any available programmer or company to make them for
him. Users will no longer be at the mercy of one programmer or company
which owns the sources and is in sole position to make changes.
Schools will be able to provide a much more educational environment
by encouraging all students to study and improve the system code.
Harvard's computer lab used to have the policy that no program could be
installed on the system if its sources were not on public display, and
upheld it by actually refusing to install certain programs. I was very
much inspired by this.
Finally, the overhead of considering who owns the system software
and what one is or is not entitled to do with it will be lifted.
Arrangements to make people pay for using a program, including
licensing of copies, always incur a tremendous cost to society through
the cumbersome mechanisms necessary to figure out how much (that is,
which programs) a person must pay for. And only a police state can
force everyone to obey them. Consider a space station where air must
be manufactured at great cost: charging each breather per liter of air
may be fair, but wearing the metered gas mask all day and all night is
intolerable even if everyone can afford to pay the air bill. And the
TV cameras everywhere to see if you ever take the mask off are
outrageous. It's better to support the air plant with a head tax and
chuck the masks.
Copying all or parts of a program is as natural to a programmer as
breathing, and as productive. It ought to be as free.
Some Easily Rebutted Objections to GNU's Goals
==============================================
"Nobody will use it if it is free, because that means they can't
rely on any support."
"You have to charge for the program to pay for providing the
support."
If people would rather pay for GNU plus service than get GNU free
without service, a company to provide just service to people who have
obtained GNU free ought to be profitable.(3)
We must distinguish between support in the form of real programming
work and mere handholding. The former is something one cannot rely on
from a software vendor. If your problem is not shared by enough
people, the vendor will tell you to get lost.
If your business needs to be able to rely on support, the only way
is to have all the necessary sources and tools. Then you can hire any
available person to fix your problem; you are not at the mercy of any
individual. With Unix, the price of sources puts this out of
consideration for most businesses. With GNU this will be easy. It is
still possible for there to be no available competent person, but this
problem cannot be blamed on distribution arrangements. GNU does not
eliminate all the world's problems, only some of them.
Meanwhile, the users who know nothing about computers need
handholding: doing things for them which they could easily do
themselves but don't know how.
Such services could be provided by companies that sell just
hand-holding and repair service. If it is true that users would rather
spend money and get a product with service, they will also be willing
to buy the service having got the product free. The service companies
will compete in quality and price; users will not be tied to any
particular one. Meanwhile, those of us who don't need the service
should be able to use the program without paying for the service.
"You cannot reach many people without advertising, and you must
charge for the program to support that."
"It's no use advertising a program people can get free."
There are various forms of free or very cheap publicity that can be
used to inform numbers of computer users about something like GNU. But
it may be true that one can reach more microcomputer users with
advertising. If this is really so, a business which advertises the
service of copying and mailing GNU for a fee ought to be successful
enough to pay for its advertising and more. This way, only the users
who benefit from the advertising pay for it.
On the other hand, if many people get GNU from their friends, and
such companies don't succeed, this will show that advertising was not
really necessary to spread GNU. Why is it that free market advocates
don't want to let the free market decide this?(4)
"My company needs a proprietary operating system to get a
competitive edge."
GNU will remove operating system software from the realm of
competition. You will not be able to get an edge in this area, but
neither will your competitors be able to get an edge over you. You and
they will compete in other areas, while benefiting mutually in this
one. If your business is selling an operating system, you will not
like GNU, but that's tough on you. If your business is something else,
GNU can save you from being pushed into the expensive business of
selling operating systems.
I would like to see GNU development supported by gifts from many
manufacturers and users, reducing the cost to each.(5)
"Don't programmers deserve a reward for their creativity?"
If anything deserves a reward, it is social contribution.
Creativity can be a social contribution, but only in so far as society
is free to use the results. If programmers deserve to be rewarded for
creating innovative programs, by the same token they deserve to be
punished if they restrict the use of these programs.
"Shouldn't a programmer be able to ask for a reward for his
creativity?"
There is nothing wrong with wanting pay for work, or seeking to
maximize one's income, as long as one does not use means that are
destructive. But the means customary in the field of software today
are based on destruction.
Extracting money from users of a program by restricting their use of
it is destructive because the restrictions reduce the amount and the
ways that the program can be used. This reduces the amount of wealth
that humanity derives from the program. When there is a deliberate
choice to restrict, the harmful consequences are deliberate destruction.
The reason a good citizen does not use such destructive means to
become wealthier is that, if everyone did so, we would all become
poorer from the mutual destructiveness. This is Kantian ethics; or,
the Golden Rule. Since I do not like the consequences that result if
everyone hoards information, I am required to consider it wrong for one
to do so. Specifically, the desire to be rewarded for one's creativity
does not justify depriving the world in general of all or part of that
creativity.
"Won't programmers starve?"
I could answer that nobody is forced to be a programmer. Most of us
cannot manage to get any money for standing on the street and making
faces. But we are not, as a result, condemned to spend our lives
standing on the street making faces, and starving. We do something
else.
But that is the wrong answer because it accepts the questioner's
implicit assumption: that without ownership of software, programmers
cannot possibly be paid a cent. Supposedly it is all or nothing.
The real reason programmers will not starve is that it will still be
possible for them to get paid for programming; just not paid as much as
now.
Restricting copying is not the only basis for business in software.
It is the most common basis because it brings in the most money. If it
were prohibited, or rejected by the customer, software business would
move to other bases of organization which are now used less often.
There are always numerous ways to organize any kind of business.
Probably programming will not be as lucrative on the new basis as it
is now. But that is not an argument against the change. It is not
considered an injustice that sales clerks make the salaries that they
now do. If programmers made the same, that would not be an injustice
either. (In practice they would still make considerably more than
that.)
"Don't people have a right to control how their creativity is
used?"
"Control over the use of one's ideas" really constitutes control over
other people's lives; and it is usually used to make their lives more
difficult.
People who have studied the issue of intellectual property rights
carefully (such as lawyers) say that there is no intrinsic right to
intellectual property. The kinds of supposed intellectual property
rights that the government recognizes were created by specific acts of
legislation for specific purposes.
For example, the patent system was established to encourage
inventors to disclose the details of their inventions. Its purpose was
to help society rather than to help inventors. At the time, the life
span of 17 years for a patent was short compared with the rate of
advance of the state of the art. Since patents are an issue only among
manufacturers, for whom the cost and effort of a license agreement are
small compared with setting up production, the patents often do not do
much harm. They do not obstruct most individuals who use patented
products.
The idea of copyright did not exist in ancient times, when authors
frequently copied other authors at length in works of non-fiction. This
practice was useful, and is the only way many authors' works have
survived even in part. The copyright system was created expressly for
the purpose of encouraging authorship. In the domain for which it was
invented--books, which could be copied economically only on a printing
press--it did little harm, and did not obstruct most of the individuals
who read the books.
All intellectual property rights are just licenses granted by society
because it was thought, rightly or wrongly, that society as a whole
would benefit by granting them. But in any particular situation, we
have to ask: are we really better off granting such license? What kind
of act are we licensing a person to do?
The case of programs today is very different from that of books a
hundred years ago. The fact that the easiest way to copy a program is
from one neighbor to another, the fact that a program has both source
code and object code which are distinct, and the fact that a program is
used rather than read and enjoyed, combine to create a situation in
which a person who enforces a copyright is harming society as a whole
both materially and spiritually; in which a person should not do so
regardless of whether the law enables him to.
"Competition makes things get done better."
The paradigm of competition is a race: by rewarding the winner, we
encourage everyone to run faster. When capitalism really works this
way, it does a good job; but its defenders are wrong in assuming it
always works this way. If the runners forget why the reward is offered
and become intent on winning, no matter how, they may find other
strategies--such as, attacking other runners. If the runners get into
a fist fight, they will all finish late.
Proprietary and secret software is the moral equivalent of runners
in a fist fight. Sad to say, the only referee we've got does not seem
to object to fights; he just regulates them ("For every ten yards you
run, you can fire one shot"). He really ought to break them up, and
penalize runners for even trying to fight.
"Won't everyone stop programming without a monetary incentive?"
Actually, many people will program with absolutely no monetary
incentive. Programming has an irresistible fascination for some
people, usually the people who are best at it. There is no shortage of
professional musicians who keep at it even though they have no hope of
making a living that way.
But really this question, though commonly asked, is not appropriate
to the situation. Pay for programmers will not disappear, only become
less. So the right question is, will anyone program with a reduced
monetary incentive? My experience shows that they will.
For more than ten years, many of the world's best programmers worked
at the Artificial Intelligence Lab for far less money than they could
have had anywhere else. They got many kinds of non-monetary rewards:
fame and appreciation, for example. And creativity is also fun, a
reward in itself.
Then most of them left when offered a chance to do the same
interesting work for a lot of money.
What the facts show is that people will program for reasons other
than riches; but if given a chance to make a lot of money as well, they
will come to expect and demand it. Low-paying organizations do poorly
in competition with high-paying ones, but they do not have to do badly
if the high-paying ones are banned.
"We need the programmers desperately. If they demand that we stop
helping our neighbors, we have to obey."
You're never so desperate that you have to obey this sort of demand.
Remember: millions for defense, but not a cent for tribute!
"Programmers need to make a living somehow."
In the short run, this is true. However, there are plenty of ways
that programmers could make a living without selling the right to use a
program. This way is customary now because it brings programmers and
businessmen the most money, not because it is the only way to make a
living. It is easy to find other ways if you want to find them. Here
are a number of examples.
A manufacturer introducing a new computer will pay for the porting of
operating systems onto the new hardware.
The sale of teaching, hand-holding and maintenance services could
also employ programmers.
People with new ideas could distribute programs as freeware, asking
for donations from satisfied users, or selling hand-holding services.
I have met people who are already working this way successfully.
Users with related needs can form users' groups, and pay dues. A
group would contract with programming companies to write programs that
the group's members would like to use.
All sorts of development can be funded with a Software Tax:
Suppose everyone who buys a computer has to pay x percent of the
price as a software tax. The government gives this to an agency
like the NSF to spend on software development.
But if the computer buyer makes a donation to software development
himself, he can take a credit against the tax. He can donate to
the project of his own choosing--often, chosen because he hopes to
use the results when it is done. He can take a credit for any
amount of donation up to the total tax he had to pay.
The total tax rate could be decided by a vote of the payers of the
tax, weighted according to the amount they will be taxed on.
The consequences:
* The computer-using community supports software development.
* This community decides what level of support is needed.
* Users who care which projects their share is spent on can
choose this for themselves.
In the long run, making programs free is a step toward the
post-scarcity world, where nobody will have to work very hard just to
make a living. People will be free to devote themselves to activities
that are fun, such as programming, after spending the necessary ten
hours a week on required tasks such as legislation, family counseling,
robot repair and asteroid prospecting. There will be no need to be
able to make a living from programming.
We have already greatly reduced the amount of work that the whole
society must do for its actual productivity, but only a little of this
has translated itself into leisure for workers because much
nonproductive activity is required to accompany productive activity.
The main causes of this are bureaucracy and isometric struggles against
competition. Free software will greatly reduce these drains in the
area of software production. We must do this, in order for technical
gains in productivity to translate into less work for us.
---------- Footnotes ----------
(1) The wording here was careless. The intention was that nobody
would have to pay for *permission* to use the GNU system. But the
words don't make this clear, and people often interpret them as saying
that copies of GNU should always be distributed at little or no charge.
That was never the intent; later on, the manifesto mentions the
possibility of companies providing the service of distribution for a
profit. Subsequently I have learned to distinguish carefully between
"free" in the sense of freedom and "free" in the sense of price. Free
software is software that users have the freedom to distribute and
change. Some users may obtain copies at no charge, while others pay to
obtain copies--and if the funds help support improving the software, so
much the better. The important thing is that everyone who has a copy
has the freedom to cooperate with others in using it.
(2) This is another place I failed to distinguish carefully between
the two different meanings of "free". The statement as it stands is
not false--you can get copies of GNU software at no charge, from your
friends or over the net. But it does suggest the wrong idea.
(3) Several such companies now exist.
(4) The Free Software Foundation raises most of its funds from a
distribution service, although it is a charity rather than a company.
If *no one* chooses to obtain copies by ordering the from the FSF, it
will be unable to do its work. But this does not mean that proprietary
restrictions are justified to force every user to pay. If a small
fraction of all the users order copies from the FSF, that is sufficient
to keep the FSF afloat. So we ask users to choose to support us in
this way. Have you done your part?
(5) A group of computer companies recently pooled funds to support
maintenance of the GNU C Compiler.
--
Michael A. Griffith
gr...@cs.ucr.edu
Dan Newcombe
>A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the
whole>GPL-stuff was unethical.
>Although I am a very happy linux & GNU user, I could not convice him of the
>deficiancy of his reasoning.
>He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
>(E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
>of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
>employees.)
[GNU Legal mumbo jumbo, 2nd time posted in two days, deleted.]
Tell this to your friend.
If one company doesn not have a monopoly on the market then all companies,
whether free software or otherwise, are unethical.
If a company goes with OS/2 instead of Windoze, then that is a slight less
profit for Microsoft. And another goes with NeXTStep, and another with Solaris.
Eventually, under your friends logic, some Microsoft programmer will get a
pink slip ("Wow, they really are pink."). So who's unethical? Sun, NeXT, and
IBM for trying to make a living, or the companies that didn't go with
Microsoft.
Of course your friend will probably come back with something about how IBM,
Sun, NeXT employ people, unlike free programs like Linux. I'll ask you
this... How does Richard Stallman eat? My guess would be that somewhere he
has a steady income.
--
Dan Newcombe newc...@aa.csc.peachnet.edu
Clayton State College Morrow, Georgia
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
"And the man in the mirror has sad eyes." -Marillion
Craig Burley
A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the whole
GPL-stuff was unethical.
Although I am a very happy linux & GNU user, I could not convice him of the
deficiancy of his reasoning.
He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
(E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
employees.)
Of course this is a very naive point of view because
a) the potential "damage" is not very great, at the moment and
b) there is definitely the potential for new work (Think of the sellers of
linux-CD-ROMS).
My question now is: Is there any data which can statistically invalidate my
friends argument? (and no, he is not a anti-commie-maniac!)
You don't need any such data. You need to get your friend a working
brain. By his reasoning, volunteer organizations (churches, libraries,
and so on), free services (government, street musicians, and such),
broadcast radio and television (being freely available), also are
unethical.
Just tell your friend you agree with him that Linux and other GPL-software
are just as inherently unethical as these other examples.
If you try and use statistics, you'll immediately discover that your
friend, and others of his ilk, can reinterpret your data endlessly,
constructing circular arguments that will make your head spin.
Certainly your friend cannot be a free-market enthusiast, so it
is easy to believe he is not an anti-commie maniac. Offhand, I
suspect the only economic system that would consider writing free
software actually "unethical" would be strict Marxism, but I might
be wrong about that, and in any case it'd only be unethical within
such a system -- and there is no place on Earth where such a system
is actually practiced, so writing free software cannot be considered
unethical by anyone other the whining, brain-dead toadies. :-)
--
James Craig Burley, Software Craftsperson bur...@gnu.ai.mit.edu
Mike Scott
ib...@cip.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de "Maximilian Ibel" writes:
>My question now is: Is there any data which can statistically invalidate my
>friends argument? (and no, he is not a anti-commie-maniac!)
Not statistical, but logical. If his company uses Linux, or another
free OS, instead of Novell then Novell gets $X less revenue and can
therefore afford less employees. But by the same logic, his company has
$X *more* money, and can afford the same number of extra employees.
Employees are simply being transferred from Novell to the other company.
--
Mike Scott || Confabulation is the 1995 UK national SF convention
Mi...@moose.demon.co.uk || Mail Con...@moose.demon.co.uk for more details
John Schulien
ib...@cip.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Maximilian Ibel) says:
> A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the
> whole GPL-stuff was unethical. Although I am a very happy linux & GNU
> He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
> (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux
> throw out employees.)
That's like saying that cooking your own food is unethical because it may
cause restaurants to have to lay off employees.
What your friend fails to consider is that you, the consumer, will take
the money you would have otherwise spent on Netware, and spend it on other
things, like Twinkies or perhaps a monitor upgrade, causing job growth
elsewhere.
Dan Wilder
>In article <2q55la$q...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>,
>ib...@cip.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Maximilian Ibel) says:
[ in part ]
>> Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
>> (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux
>> instead of, lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to
>> throw out employees.)
>That's like saying that cooking your own food is unethical because it may
>cause restaurants to have to lay off employees.
>What your friend fails to consider is that you, the consumer, will take
>the money you would have otherwise spent on Netware, and spend it on other
>things, like Twinkies or perhaps a monitor upgrade, causing job growth
>elsewhere.
Quite true. Beyond that, to the extent that purchase of one good may
encourage purchase of some other good to be used with it, a decrease
in the price of one good may lead to an increase in demand for other
goods. Thus, free unix may create employment, not cost jobs.
Look up the term "cross elasticity" in any intro Econ text.
In addition, a fall in the price of a factor of production may allow
some pass-through to retail prices, again leading to increased
production and more jobs. Or alternately to bigger profits. Or
some combination. And I'd say Linux might qualify as a
possible factor of production.
Consider another good. Consider oil. Does a decrease in the price
of oil cost jobs, or create them?
---
Dan Wilder (Qualification: Once took a couple of grad courses in Econ)
JAMES HALL
: GPL-stuff was unethical.
(...)
: He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
: (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
: of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
: employees.)
Why do I see a flame war about to begin... :-)
At the risk of being flamed, I will just throw in my $.02 worth on
this: I have always beleived that if, say, Microsoft or Novell had
written a better OS than what they presently offered, I would never
have had reason to switch to Linux. As much as I love Linux, it was
the commercial vendor's mistake to *not* listen to the bulk of their
audience and create a really solid yet simple operating system.
We write stuff like Linux and the 'GNU' software because no commercial
vendor is giving us what we demand of a system.
It's not the user's fault for trying to implement software that he/she
*needs* when the commercial vendors aren't listening. From that, it
is not our fault if "novell gets less profit and has to throw out
employees" *because* they didn't respond to market demand.
David H Dennis
additional comment. Linux expands the market for Unix stuff. Take me,
for example. I am starting an Internet BBS that I could not have
afforded to create without Linux, since SCO is just a shade pricey. :-(
I'm sure there are plenty of different grass-roots entrepenurial activities
that are going on because of Linux. Linux makes it economic for us to do
things using a Unix compatible system, and that can't help but be good for
the Unix community as a whole.
I would guess that there is very little crossover between potential
SCO users and potential Linux users. SCO users want the support they
can only get from a big company. There have been times in my use of
Linux that I've wished for that support too, but I've always gotten
over it. :-) If I'd been a big company, with thousands of dollars
available for software, I probabbly would have selected SCO or
Solaris.
I'll bet the average Linux user is a student who wants to play around
with a Unix system. He's not going to buy a copy of SCO for $ 1,400!
The real market for SCO is people who can't afford not to have some
form of support for their product. The real market for Linux is people
who can't afford the product, period.
I don't see Novell exactly crying about Linux's existance. In fact, I
believe one of their products is actually going to support it. This
is a strong indication that they do not think Linux is a bad thing for
the Unix community. Also, do you realize who subsidizes the main
archive site for Linux? SUNsite.unc.edu. If Sun Microsystems didn't
think Linux helped their community, you can bet they wouldn't spend
all that money to support a FTP archive helping Linux people!
Actually, I strongly suspect that they think many Linux users will be
future users of Sun workstations once they put a bit more money
together. And they could be right about this, too.
No, the only person who really loses from Linux is our poor friend Linus,
who gains not a sou for all that effort he put in. Poor fellow.
On the other hand, how many people are that famous on the net in such
a positive way? He could probably create a cult around us if he wanted.
Hey, while I'm at it ... thanks, Linus.
<smile>
D
Donald VuKovic
I see teh real reason for the orignal posts "friend" to dislike 'free'
software is because HE does not want to WORK. Its easy to complain about a
product that you did not write ( read 'can charge for' ).
The software buisness is the last truly competitive profession.
If I release a program today (lets say a great program), whos to say the
someone else will not release a better program tomorrow?
Who will buy my program that I sent many hard hours,(month,years) writting.
The argument is not about lossing jobs, its about lossing MY job.
If you (original posters friend) can't stand the heat, get out of the
profession.
thanks for listening
donaldV
S. Joel Katz
employment oppurunities) could be used to attack any charitable
enterprise, any donation of any kind, any gifts of any kind, and so on.
The economic responses, though correct, are not quite to the
point. The point, and an important one, is that is not unethical to
eliminate jobs. Otherwise, the use of a railroad to carry freight would be
unethical -- how many more people could we employ to carry it on their backs?
SJK
Peter Herweijer
>He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
>(E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
>of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
>employees.)
Like so many "insights", this is utterly naive. In the real world,
there is almost never such a thing as a single effect, and in order to
REALLY assess what the net effect of a given change is you need to do
a quantitative analysis as opposed to a qualitative analysis.
Unfortunately, this concept apparently is very difficult to grasp since
you see this kind of "reasoning" time and time again. Read the letters
section of your favourite newspaper, every day there is some complete
idiot who concocted an "argument" like this and even thought it solid
enough to publicize.
But I digress ;^) To mention a simple counter-effect apart from the
ones you mentioned, think of what the company does with the money they
saved by NOT buying netware. They're certainly not going to put it in
an old sock---instead, they'll do some other purchase or investment.
The productivity they gained by being able to do more with the same
amount of money is likely to stimulate their business, etc.
We now return to the scheduled programme of this newsgroup---
Peter Herweijer
pie...@sci.kun.nl
Bill Hogan
: Hello, world!
: A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the whole
: GPL-stuff was unethical.
: Although I am a very happy linux & GNU user, I could not convice him of the
: deficiancy of his reasoning.
: He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
: (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
: of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
: employees.) ...
Maximilian,
What your friend seems to me to be saying is that he feels it is
unethical to give things away.
On a deeper level, perhaps, your friend may sense that certain economic
verities no longer apply.
For example, there is a fixed amount of land, so as population size
increases, the amount of land available per capita declines and the price
of land goes up, right?
But what if the amount of land increased just as fast or faster than
population size?
The price of land would go down, right?
Well, computing power increases as a function of computing power.
New realities don't always fit into old categories.
Bill
--
Bill Hogan
{bho...@crl.com}
John Henders
>He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
>(E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
>of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
>employees.)
By your friend's logic, most programming is unethical, as it is
usually done to save labour. Especially programming for industrial controls
and other places where machines are being used to replace human labour. Word
processors and Desktop publiching programs put printers out of work,
spreadsheets and accounting programs put accountants and mathematicians out
of work, and other common programs put clerks and others out of work. Gui's
(in theory) put computer consulatants out of work.
I hope after you explain this to him, that he can find a career in a
more ethical profession.
--
John Henders - Wimsey Information Services
http://www.wimsey.com/ (teletimes, gnn and more)
GAT/MU/AE d- -p+(--) c++++ l++ u++ t- m---
e* s-/+ n-(?) h++ f+ g+ w+++ y*
lcva...@et.tudelft.nl
jobs in the developmentfield for people that write OS's, but
certainly can create jobs for people writing add-on's and user
specific programs. Apart from that good free software forces
the commercial guys to write better software. Why would anybody
buy free software for professional use if there's a better
commercial packages on the market. Complete with manuals and
support? Linux and other free software come without printed
manuals and the support is based on mutual 'hobbyism' and
friendship of computer users all over the world.
Apart from that, free software can create jobs. Lot's of people
take the risk of using this kind of software professionaly and
need support faster than the Internet can give it. Maybe they
even need on-side support. Lot's of people can jump on to that
wagon and make a living out of that.
Hope this kind of gives a balans to the 'unethical' side of
the free software available.
Martijn.
Matt Welsh
>Linux and other free software come without printed
>manuals and the support is based on mutual 'hobbyism' and
>friendship of computer users all over the world.
Wrong. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you
post something like this to the Net.
Matt Welsh
>The GPL fails in some degree. It seems to be nessicary
>to prevent free software from falling into the hands of those
>who would take it away. Yet it also reads like some sort of
>'free-or-none' two bit propaganda.
But, you see, that's the entire social ethos behind the GPL.
The idea behind the GPL is that free software---software that people can
share, freely---is better than commercial software, inherently. The
idea behind the GPL is to push for and encourage the development of free
software. It is "free-or-none", in some sense, because the moral thrust
backing the GPL is that of having _all_ software, everywhere, be absolutely
free. Yes, it's an extremely strong standpoint. But that's the kind of
standpoint that RMS had in mind when he put forth the GPL.
>Otherwise why hold a grudge against the evil empire(AT&T) or anyone
>else who would like to make a killing on UNIX. They invented it.
>They are fully within reason to defend their ownership of it, just
>as if anyone tried to profit from anything I have written, without
>my consent. GPL is a waste of resources. It is as restrictive
>as the 'derived code' source agreement that anyone who has looked
>at AT&T source has been forced to sign. It forbids development
>in areas where hardware has a proprietary sensitivity, and where
>ideas have that same sensitivity.
"Sensitivity"? Sensitivity to _what_? The world of commerce? You
apparently don't understand what you're saying. As I said above,
the idea is that all software should be shared. ALL software, not
some of it, not parts of it. It's a philosophy that states that
software is not a product with which you can bargain, but something
to benefit society as a whole. It's more along the lines of scientific
research, which is published openly for society to benefit from.
And, to some extent, it's ahead of its time. As computers become
more and more important and intrinsic to our daily lives, some of
us are realizing that playing childish games of "ownership" is
absolutely ridiculous. What if Benjamin Franklin claimed "ownership"
over the harnessing of electricity? Turing "ownership" over the
theory of computation? Where would we be? Absolutely nowhere---our
entire society and all of the technology in it would be controlled
exclusively by the entities that "owned" those concepts. Nobody could
benefit from them at all. Nobody would be given the chance to modify
them, improve upon them, or utilize them in new ways---they would be
merely products with which to make money.
I suspect that in ten years we'll look back and realize that Apple's
and Microsoft's inane lawsuits about look-and-feel and who-came-up-with-
what-idea-first were very damaging to progress. They don't get anybody
anywhere. The software doesn't ever have a chance to improve as long
as these companies are whining over their "ownership" of these ideas.
Don't you see how damaging commercial software can be? Are you content
to run pre-packaged, shrink-wrapped software, spoonfed to you by
corporate giants? Do you want all software to be controlled by
multibillion-dollar corporations? Do you honestly want IBM,
Microsoft, and Apple to DICTATE to you how you can use your computer?
Do you want to give up all rights and ability to design and improve
upon software yourself?
If so, then you are giving up what I consider to be a fundamental
right, along with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Running these little black boxes that Microsoft and others sell to
us for big bucks simply isn't good enough for me. I want to know
what's going on inside and have the chance to modify it myself, if
need be. I don't want to pay Microsoft $100 for every "upgrade".
That's absolutely ridiculous if I can make the changes myself.
This is what the GPL does away with: the idea that software should be
owned and controlled by a single entity. Copyright is maintained in
order to prevent modifications of the software from being distributed
non-freely.
>It may be asked, "Do you have any better ideas?" My answer
>would be, IF you want your code to be free, copyright it, and
>give it away. Do not let GPL make you give source code, or
>your users give source code. New algorithims, good programs,
>good ideas are for the benefit of humanity. If you think
>humanity will buy it, sell it, if you want, give it away.
But "giving it away" ENTAILS giving away the source code. You seem
to think that running a binary is sufficient. I'm afraid not. Perhaps
you're too accustomed to using pre-built binary software packages, and
don't have a mind to modify them or improve them in any way.
What the GPL does is guarantee that software can be shared. It's not
about ownership. It's not about who-did-what. It's about constantly
improving upon ideas, and sharing them back with the community.
mdw
Craig Burley
Please take this BS to gnu.misc.discuss, where it rightfully belongs.
(If you want your code to be free, don't copyright it, release
it to the public domain -- else it isn't any more free than GPL'ed
code, and in fact is, in the general case, far less free.)
Dan Newcombe
Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is wrong about the above statement?
Frank Lofaro
>In article <2q55la$q...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>,
>Maximilian Ibel <ib...@cip.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> wrote:
>>Hello, world!
>>
>>A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the whole
>>GPL-stuff was unethical.
>>Although I am a very happy linux & GNU user, I could not convice him of the
>>deficiancy of his reasoning.
>>
>>He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
>>(E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
>>of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
>>employees.)
>
What an ironic example! :)
Seems like NOVELL THEMSELVES are using linux instead of Netware! :)
(see the thread on Expose, Novell's Linux distribution)
Henry Ware
Brandon S. Allbery <b...@kf8nh.wariat.org> wrote:
>In article <2q55la$q...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> ib...@cip.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Maximilian Ibel) says:
>+---------------
>| He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
>| (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
>| of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
>| employees.)
>Statistics are worthless: they can be made to support any desired conclusion
>("torture numbers and they'll confess to anything!", "there are three kinds of
>lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics"). Don't waste your time with them;
>point your misguided friend in the direction of the truth, assuming he can
>cope with it. History has already shown his stance to be naive (re: the
>Luddites).
Statistics are facts. It is always a mistake to argue about accepted
facts. Its an even worse mistake to argue *against* facts: unless you
like being wrong. What is the 'truth', if not the best available data?
In quantity, these will be statistics.
Statistics do reflect the questions asked. These may be poor and/or biased
questions.
What is software for? To guide a computer, of course. Hopefully, to
solve a problem and/or to fill a need. Why should we make more software:
Hypothesis 1: Software's purpose is to create jobs for software writers.
Hypothesis 2: Software's purpose is to help solve problems and thus make
the world a better place.
Hypothesis 3: Software's purpose is to satisfy our need to engage
interesting problems.
People employing programmers are likely to favor hypothesis #2. (There
may be may other hypothesis's I've ignored. sorry.)
To say that free software hurts the world economy is like saying free
steel would hurt the economy. The real benefit of steel is not just that
it is strong (as computers are fast), steel is not worth much until formed
into a car, desk, box or nail (as a computer is worth little without
software). What GNU/Linux does is turn raw computrons into usefull items:
like forming a steel billet into I-beams, rebar and plate. This is
clearly a value adding process. That is, it is good for people at large.
And even when system softwares (I-beams) are free, there is a lot
of work required to make any significant structure: interesting and
challenging work remains to make any non-trivial product.
If Novell, Microsoft or IBM loses money to copy-lefted software, the
company which would have paid the fees gains an equal amount. And an
efficency gain comes back to all of us: in terms of cheaper catering,
welding, magazines et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
If you feel there is a real argument that copy-lefted software hurts the
economy, please post or send me email; I'd be interested to read it.
-Henry
--
That does it! I'm putting me back in my kill file.
Matt Welsh
>>>Linux and other free software come without printed
>>>manuals and the support is based on mutual 'hobbyism' and
>>>friendship of computer users all over the world.
>
>>Wrong. Please make sure you know what you're talking about before you
>>post something like this to the Net.
>
>Maybe I'm missing something here, but what is wrong about the above statement?
The fact that printed manuals _are_ available, as is commercial support.
It's quite annoying when people choose to neglect entirely the many hours
of hard work put forth by the LDP.
mdw
Dan Newcombe
>From: hw...@bronze.coil.com (Henry Ware)
>Statistics are facts. It is always a mistake to argue about accepted
>facts. Its an even worse mistake to argue *against* facts: unless you
>like being wrong. What is the 'truth', if not the best available data?
>In quantity, these will be statistics.
Yup. Every American has 2.4 kids :)
Dan Newcombe
Ok... I took the original post to mean that you can FTP a distribution or
files, and that it doesn't automatically come with manuals (which usually
don't help)
I'll agree the LDP is good.
lcva...@et.tudelft.nl
lines. In that I stated that linux itself came without manuals
and that other people could find work in supporting Linux
to people who simply get the slackware distribution. In fact
most people choose not to buy the manuals and rely on support
from the net. Support that is given by computer-enthousiast
from all over the world and is given for free. Since Linux is
(for as far as I know) an enviroment that is being developed
for free by all kinds of people. Since all these prgrams
make up Linux as a whole, I hardly think that there's a place
where you can buy the manuals for the system as a whole.
If this is the case then I'm wrong about linux but it wouldn't
change a lot of my statement concerning free software. It woul
d only change it slightly for Linux.
Apart from this all, I don't think this news-group is the right
place to argument over things like this. This seems to me to
be a discussion that should be held at an other group, or even
only by mail. Thus preventing people from getting rude etc.
Martijn
lilo
> Hello, world!
> A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the whole
> GPL-stuff was unethical.
> Although I am a very happy linux & GNU user, I could not convice him of the
> deficiancy of his reasoning.
> He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
> (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
> of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
> employees.)
People are not drones! They're generalists. If someone loses their job,
they stand a very good chance of finding a new one. And you shouldn't be
forced to support someone's doing a job you don't need. If they're going to
find a job, they need to find a job doing something someone needs. Or maybe
go to work for the government? ;)
> Of course this is a very naive point of view because
> a) the potential "damage" is not very great, at the moment and
> b) there is definitely the potential for new work (Think of the sellers of
> linux-CD-ROMS).
And if there's always contract work supporting software. And, there's
always driving a taxi. :)
lilo
Gary Merinstein
>On 3 May 1994 09:31:22 GMT, Maximilian Ibel (ib...@cip.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de) wrote:
>> Hello, world!
>> A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the whole
>> GPL-stuff was unethical.
>> Although I am a very happy linux & GNU user, I could not convice him of the
>> deficiancy of his reasoning.
>> He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
>> (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
>> of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
>> employees.)
this is the same argument abbott & costello used in their comedy routines
re: the susquehanna hat company (??) & the "manufactering of mustard". it
runs something like: lou doesn't like mustard on his hot dog. budd
"accuses" lou of putting an entire industry of workers out of work because
if other people stop using mustard on their hot dogs, the mustard-makers
will have to lay off mustard workers." you should take his "arguement" as
seriously.
>People are not drones! They're generalists. If someone loses their job,
>they stand a very good chance of finding a new one. And you shouldn't be
>forced to support someone's doing a job you don't need. If they're going to
>find a job, they need to find a job doing something someone needs. Or maybe
>go to work for the government? ;)
>> Of course this is a very naive point of view because
>> a) the potential "damage" is not very great, at the moment and
>> b) there is definitely the potential for new work (Think of the sellers of
>> linux-CD-ROMS).
>And if there's always contract work supporting software. And, there's
>always driving a taxi. :)
they could always manufacture mustard!
--
*** gme...@panix.com "..here pigs will fly, lightning will strike twice, ***
*** mci: 489-6979 hell will freeze over, and eventually, ***
*** ci$ 74035,1232 things will get really interesting..." ***
Tim Shelling
>> He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
>> (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
>> of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
>> employees.)
>>
>Well, my first reaction is that [he] must have read _Atlas_Shrugged_ and
>*totally* missed the rather bad fallacy that Ayn Rand tries to pass
>off in the novel (the fallacy of polarization).
It seems to me, having read _Atlas Shrugged_ and other Rand works, that
the person's argument indicates to me that they *have not* read
_Atlas Shrugged_. Giving away something for free is just another
sort of free competition. What would violate Rand's philosophy is to
make everyone pay for that software, through some sort of tax, like
Stallman's "Software Tax". Then it would not be like the air we breathe.
We don't pay a tax on that (yet).
I assume by "polarization" you mean that every topic is black and white
and that every character in her story is on one side of the fence or
the other. And yes, I'll agree that's true to an extent, but certainly,
many of her heros are flawed and a few of her antagonists have redeeming
qualities.
> Either that, or he is
>thinking like a GOSPLAN (the Soviet planning office) bueraucrat.
This is more likely the case. Again from his argument, he is more likely
to be a misguided socialist than a misguided objectivist.
tjs
--
Ultimately, you believe all things because you want to believe you know. FH
Argue for your limitations -- and sure enough -- they're yours. RB
main(){write(0,"Tim Shelling, CmpE, Sr.\n" "gt2...@prism.gatech.edu\n",50);}
Tim Shelling
>In article <2q55la$q...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> ib...@cip.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Maximilian Ibel) writes:
> A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the whole
> GPL-stuff was unethical.
> Although I am a very happy linux & GNU user, I could not convice him of the
> deficiancy of his reasoning.
> He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
> (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
> of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
> employees.)
>You don't need any such data. You need to get your friend a working
>brain. By his reasoning, volunteer organizations (churches, libraries,
>and so on), free services (government, street musicians, and such),
>broadcast radio and television (being freely available), also are
>unethical.
I could argue that GPL is immoral because some of the software is written
by people who are on the payroll of public universities and are using
the tax-payers money to write the software that most tax payers themselves
will never use. However, most of the software is written by people who
are either at private universities or who have grants and fellowships.
Furthermore, people at tax-supported institutions may have written the
software on their own time. Finally, by the same argument, all papers
and knowledge which comes from gov-supported institutions are also
immoral. That is not an argument in and of itself, but the collective
search for knowledge and truth can be argued as a legitmate functions
of government.
R. D. Thomas
Henry Ware <hw...@bronze.coil.com> wrote:
>
>If Novell, Microsoft or IBM loses money to copy-lefted software, the
>company which would have paid the fees gains an equal amount.
Close, but no cigar. Actually more companies purchase a product
than produce that same product. Hence, *more* money is made available
by a reduction in cost of a product.
Dale
--
===========================================================================
r...@kaiwan.com
===========================================================================
Alan Cox
>A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the whole
>GPL-stuff was unethical.
>Although I am a very happy linux & GNU user, I could not convice him of the
>deficiancy of his reasoning.
>
>He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
>(E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
>of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
>employees.)
First principle of a capitalist economy - if you can't compete you go down the
pan. You could equally argue that buy deciding not to treat yourself to a
bar of chocolate you make people suffer.
Also remember the firm now using Linux is more competetive and can go on to
clobber other people and thus employ more people themselves.
>My question now is: Is there any data which can statistically invalidate my
>friends argument? (and no, he is not a anti-commie-maniac!)
His argument about destroying an employance is very socialist rather than
capitalist.
Alan
Michael Rothstein
(deletia..)
>
>No, the only person who really loses from Linux is our poor friend Linus,
>who gains not a sou for all that effort he put in. Poor fellow.
>On the other hand, how many people are that famous on the net in such
>a positive way? He could probably create a cult around us if he wanted.
>
>Hey, while I'm at it ... thanks, Linus.
><smile>
>
>D
here: Linux is a phenomenon which could not have occurred if
a) it were _not_ copylefted
b) If the internet had not helped.
True: it all started with Linus Torvalds, but there are countless other
volunteers all over the world who also helped: by submitting patches,
by serving as beta testers, etc... In fact, I think they also deserve a
"Thank You", each and every one of them. Linux would not have become
as good if it weren't for them.
And that is what Free Software is all about: it is about sharing; sharing
ideas, sharing knowledge, sharing code, sharing programs, sharing bug fixes.
It is all about building a programmers sibblinghood, where we all share
and share alike: today, you, tomorrow, it is my work, and everybody
benefits from somebody else's work the next day.
Now, let me recite my view of Stallmans thoughts on why the software houses
are unethical (yes, read the manifesto, that is what it says!)
a) When a person signs a license, (s)he gives up the possibility of doing
certain things with the program (like, for example, trying to improve it!)
In addition, it is very shaky grounds as to whether it is legitimate to
own several computers and have a copy of the same program on each, because
you only use one computer at a time; with free software there are no such
problems.
b) When a person buys a program at a computer store which turns out to be
defective ("conflict with the hardware") there is often very little (s)he can
do: the shrink wrap will be torn, so the store will not take it back, but
the program is useless: calling the company for support is very often
a frustrating (and expensive!) experience; in other words, the software
house is ripping you off.
If, on the other hand, you have the source, you can either:
i) attempt to fix it yourself, or
ii) ask for help in something like the net.
iii) Try to convince a friendly programmer to find the problem, or
iv) hire a programmer to fix it for you if none of the above work.
v) Wait around; given the amount of hardware out there _somebody_else_ must
have had the same problem and found a solution.
Specially if you are a programmer, this makes a lot more sense.
c) In order to learn programming, it is much better to examine actual, running
code, than to just examine the algorithms in some book; having the actual
code in front of you means that the student can "diddle at will" with
the parameters, leading to a much better understanding of the principles
involved.
True, we owe a lot to Richard Stallman, who has strongly defended the idea
of free software, and to Linus Torvaldis who came up with the idea of Linux;
however, Linux and GNU are much bigger than their founders, and a lot
of credit also goes to a lot of other people.
Let me finish by pointing out that this idea of free software also does
away with software piracy, because the whole idea becomes meaningless.
It also does away with copy protections, dongles and all the other
impedimenta which only serve to preserve the software houses' monopolies.
We now return to our regular Q&A about Linux (see (b) above :-))
--
Michael Rothstein (Kent State U)| Any similarity between Kent State's opinions
(roth...@mcs.kent.edu) | and my opinions is strictly coincidential.
The problem with some lawyers is that they don't know the difference between
"legal" and "ethical". And, they're the ones who make the laws.
Bill Hogan
: Hello, world!
: A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the whole
: GPL-stuff was unethical.
: Although I am a very happy linux & GNU user, I could not convice him of the
: deficiancy of his reasoning.
: He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
: (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
: of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
: employees.) ...
Hello again, Maximilian!
It occurs to me that the same argument must have been made by the Royal
Tutors' Guild about the time the idea of public schooling was first raised:
"What? Free schools? Think of all the tutors who will lose their jobs!"
The system of private tutoring for those who could afford it could not
and did not meet the needs of the machine-based economy emerging then, and
private programming for those who can afford it cannot and is not meeting
the needs of the software-based economy emerging today.
The cup runneth over.
Russell Nelson
No, the only person who really loses from Linux is our poor friend Linus,
who gains not a sou for all that effort he put in. Poor fellow.
On the other hand, how many people are that famous on the net in such
a positive way? He could probably create a cult around us if he wanted.
Well, given the size of the Linux community, I'd say that Linus has
guaranteed employment for the next ten years. He could walk into just
about any Unix-using house and say "Okay, I'm here for my job", and if
they didn't have one, they'd *create* one for him. I'm sure that
Linus has already been asked if he's looking for a job.
Fame translates into job offers.
--
-russ <nel...@crynwr.com> ftp.msen.com:pub/vendor/crynwr/crynwr.wav
Crynwr Software | Crynwr Software sells packet driver support | ask4 PGP key
11 Grant St. | +1 315 268 1925 (9201 FAX) | Quakers do it in the light
Potsdam, NY 13676 | LPF member - ask me about the harm software patents do.
Wolf Paul
|> A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the
|> whole GPL-stuff was unethical.
|>
|> (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
|> of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
|> employees.)
Your friend's reasoning would be correct if we assumed that the ethics of
an action are to be measured primarily by how the action affects other people's
jobs.
By that standard, any neighbourly help would be unethical because it deprives
the professionals you'd have to call otherwise of paid work.
By that standard keeping your kids at home with Mummy would be unethical
because it deprives a kindergarten teacher of a job.
By that standard breast-feeding babies would be unethical because it deprives
Nestle, and Gerber, and Milupa, etc., of sales and thus some of their
(potential) employees of a job.
By that standard eating healthily and not smoking would be unethical because
it deprives doctors, and nurses, and pharmacists, and the employees of
tobacco manufacturers of their jobs.
By that standard the local amateur performance of classical music would be
unethical because it might keep people from paying for expensive opera
tickets and thus might cost some high-paid tenor his job.
This is an unreasonable standard to judge behaviour by.
--
V Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center w...@aaf.alcatel.at
+-----------------+ Alcatel Austria Research Center +43-1-391621-122 (w)
| A L C A T E L | Ruthnergasse 1-7 +43-1-391452 (fax)
+-----------------+ A-1210 Vienna-Austria/Europe +43-1-2206481 (h)
Simon Roberts
>In article <2q55la$q...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>, ib...@cip.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Maximilian Ibel) writes:
>|> A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the
>|> whole GPL-stuff was unethical.
>|>
>|> He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
>|> (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
>|> of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
>|> employees.)
do you get the feeling that this newsgroups readership disagrees with this
suggestion??
Seems to me that in the dog eat dog world of commercial enterprize,
Joe is entirely at liberty to screw up Jim's livelyhood by any means
within the law, and for any reason. Surely in this case the altruistic
motivation makes the action less offensive than a greedy motivation,
regardless of the consequences (and I don't accept the suggestion
that an overall negative effect is had on the commercial world anyway.)
Simon
--
------------------------------------------------------
Simon Roberts sim...@compucol.co.uk
(0223) 250127
The Computer College +44 223 250127
David Fox
] By that standard, any neighbourly help would be unethical because it deprives
] the professionals you'd have to call otherwise of paid work.
[Other examples deleted.]
And even all these examples would only be unethical if you
then took the money you saved and burned it. If you spend
it on something else then you are still creating employment.
So is burning money the ultimate anti-social act?
--
David Fox xoF divaD
NYU Media Research Lab baL hcraeseR aideM UYN
lilo
> Seems to me that in the dog eat dog world of commercial enterprize,
> Joe is entirely at liberty to screw up Jim's livelyhood by any means
> within the law, and for any reason. Surely in this case the altruistic
> motivation makes the action less offensive than a greedy motivation,
Hmm? You mean my desire to get free software is altruistic? Or is it my
desire to write free software so someone else will do the same?
I don't think "free" software is necessarily about altruism. It's just
about a system of commerce that often works a lot better than the
"pay-for-license-to-object-only" system that the larger players seem to want
to foist on us.... :)
lilo
Eyvind Bernhardsen
> So is burning money the ultimate anti-social act?
Yeah. Instead of BURNING money, you should be giving it to me.
Think about that, next time. ;)
--
// Eyvind Bernhardsen - finger for PGP key - eyv...@lise.unit.no
\X/ "MS Word is an ugly, clanking, God-awful mess of a program." -DNA
Maximilian Ibel
First of all (in order to appease several people who
wrote me mails/posted in this group), I want to thank
Linus Torvalds for his wonderful os.
Obviously, I haven't made it clear enough that I use
linux regularly (I have no other os, at the moment)
and am quite happy with it. Thanks also to R. Stallman
and other autors of GNU or free software, whose
programs I use, too.
My original article wasn't intended to be an attack
but a question.
Second, I want to thank all people who answered me,
per mail or by posting here. The generally friendly
tone was perhaps more I deserved for my stupid
questions, and I have to confess that I have to
think about capitalism/socialism etc a bit harder
before posting. However, "wer nicht fragt, bleibt
dumm" (Who does not ask, remains ignorant).
Even my friend had to concede that if a firm
uses a free (or GNU, I know the difference, I
have known before, but for an exact definition, read
the GPL) program instead of a commercial one, the
spared money will not dissapear in limbo, it will
make the firms products cheaper (for the competition),
or when no competition exists, the managers will
order new swimming pools etc for themselves ;-),
which will create new jobs as well.
So far, so good. I could not convice him of more.
It seems useless. However, he is not a socialist,
(as far as I can tell) like many of the posters/writers
suspected. I give up now. (Convincing a block.... is
boring, anyway).
I think, there are some examples in the computer world
which show that commercial product *can* compete
with the same product (free). "TeX" is a fine
example for this. There are several firms earning lots
of money for commercial TeX-Versions.
If NOVELL(TM) does sell a linux-containing product,
we have another nice example.
In my opinion, there are more jobs for writing
customized software or for adapting software than
there are jobs for writing programs ala MS-DOS
which are programmed once (by a relatively small
staff) and sold many times (ala MSDOS) . Free Software
(especially software under the GPL which "opens"
the source code) will promote the jobs for
customized software and (perhaps) lessen the market
for MSDOS et al. The total number of jobs would also
increase.
HOWEVER: for this opinion, I have no proof. Therefore
I wrote my original article. Just to get some
statistical data.
If you have some relevant data, please feel free to
write me. PLEASE USE EMAIL. DON'T POST ANY MORE
ARTICELS ABOUT THIS TOPIC IN THIS NEWSGROUP. PLEASE FORGIVE
SYNTACTICAL AND SEMANTICAL ERRORS.
With best regards,
Maximilian
P.S. I really don't care wether linux is unethical or
not. I would use it anyway, I think. MI
James E. Mcnalley
: ] By that standard, any neighbourly help would be unethical because it deprives
: ] the professionals you'd have to call otherwise of paid work.
: [Other examples deleted.]
: And even all these examples would only be unethical if you
: then took the money you saved and burned it. If you spend
: it on something else then you are still creating employment.
HA! You see, trickle-down economics *DOES* work!!!! (sorry, I had to do that).
: So is burning money the ultimate anti-social act?
Depends. If you burn less than 50% of the money (ie, half of each
dollar is left), you can send it in to the government, where teams of
specialists will check to make sure it is real money, and the ammount you
claim, and then give you new money. So, we should all take out or dollars
and burn part of them so that those people will be able to keep their jobs :-)
--
James McNalley | "I have never let my schooling interfere with my
JEM Computer Consulting | education" -Mark Twain
mcna...@agora.rdrop.com| "Live free or die" -New Hampshier motto
Portland, OR |
James E. Mcnalley
: In article <2q55la$q...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de>, ib...@cip.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de (Maximilian Ibel) writes:
: |> A friend of mine recently tried to convince me that linux, as well as the
: |> whole GPL-stuff was unethical.
: |>
: |> He stated: Writing a program for free will destroy a employance.
: |> (E.g. if you give away linux for free and a firm decides to use linux instead
: |> of , lets say netware, then novell gets less profit and has to throw out
: |> employees.)
: Your friend's reasoning would be correct if we assumed that the ethics of
: an action are to be measured primarily by how the action affects other people's
: jobs.
: By that standard, any neighbourly help would be unethical because it deprives
: the professionals you'd have to call otherwise of paid work.
Actually, any business would be unethical. If two business compete
together, and one goes out of busines because it can't compete, is the
otehr business unethical??? I guess the whole computer industry is prety
unethical :-)
: By that standard keeping your kids at home with Mummy would be unethical
: because it deprives a kindergarten teacher of a job.
Or, letting mom go to work would be unethical because she gets a job
that someone else could have gotten :-)
: By that standard breast-feeding babies would be unethical because it deprives
: Nestle, and Gerber, and Milupa, etc., of sales and thus some of their
: (potential) employees of a job.
: By that standard eating healthily and not smoking would be unethical because
: it deprives doctors, and nurses, and pharmacists, and the employees of
: tobacco manufacturers of their jobs.
Just as not comitting a crime is unethical because if there is no
crime there is no need for poliece :-) By extension, peace is *VERY* unethical
because all those soldiers would be out of a job, not to mention the
companies that make tanks, planes and assult weapons (that reminds me, gun
control is unethical because it reduces the sales of guns... Actually,
it is unethical because it is unconstitutional, etc. I *DO* disagree with
gun control :-)
: By that standard the local amateur performance of classical music would be
: unethical because it might keep people from paying for expensive opera
: tickets and thus might cost some high-paid tenor his job.
No, you have it all wrong! It is the "professional" musicians
that are unethical, they are putting the street-musicians out of business!!!
: This is an unreasonable standard to judge behaviour by.
By making that statement, you are putting professional lawyers
and judges out of business :-) :-) :-) :-)
: --
: V Wolf N. Paul, Computer Center w...@aaf.alcatel.at
: +-----------------+ Alcatel Austria Research Center +43-1-391621-122 (w)
: | A L C A T E L | Ruthnergasse 1-7 +43-1-391452 (fax)
: +-----------------+ A-1210 Vienna-Austria/Europe +43-1-2206481 (h)
--
Andrew Bulhak
: So far we have an Emacs text editor with Lisp for writing editor
: commands, a source level debugger, a yacc-compatible parser generator,
: a linker, and around 35 utilities. A shell (command interpreter) is
: nearly completed. A new portable optimizing C compiler has compiled
: itself and may be released this year. An initial kernel exists but
: many more features are needed to emulate Unix. When the kernel and
: compiler are finished, it will be possible to distribute a GNU system
: suitable for program development. We will use TeX as our text
: formatter, but an nroff is being worked on. We will use the free,
: portable X window system as well. After this we will add a portable
: Common Lisp, an Empire game, a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other
: things, plus on-line documentation. We hope to supply, eventually,
: everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and more.
: GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to
: Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our
: experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to
: have longer file names, file version numbers, a crashproof file system,
: file name completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, and
: perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several
: Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen. Both C
: and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. We will
: try to support UUCP, MIT Chaosnet, and Internet protocols for
: communication.
A Lisp-based window system? Is that still happening?
--
Andrew Bulhak a...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
The only person more evil than Kibo!
Bill Janssen
A Lisp-based window system? Is that still happening?
You mean, aside from GNU Emacs?
Bill
--
Bill Janssen <jan...@parc.xerox.com> (415) 812-4763 FAX: (415) 812-4777
Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, 3333 Coyote Hill Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304
URL: http://pubweb.parc.xerox.com/hypertext/people/BillJanssen.html
Matt Welsh
>: perhaps eventually a Lisp-based window system through which several
>: Lisp programs and ordinary Unix programs can share a screen.
>
I believe that the project was dropped in favour of X. Perhaps
GNUbies out there can fill in the details.
mdw
Bao Chau Ha
>In article <2rc4hq$c...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au> acb...@penfold.cc.monash.edu.au (Andrew Bulhak) writes:
>
> A Lisp-based window system? Is that still happening?
>
>You mean, aside from GNU Emacs?
>
Bao
Marco Antoniotti
In article <habaoch.94...@wilbur.eng.auburn.edu> hab...@eng.auburn.edu (Bao Chau Ha) writes:
This is a tickling topic for a die hard CL programmer.
Actually a "specification" for a portable CL window system IS out
there: CLIM. Unfortunately there is no public domain and not even
GPL'd version.
I guess we Lisp programmers will have to languish slowly toward
extinction. :(
--
Marco Antoniotti - Resistente Umano
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robotics Lab | room: 1220 - tel. #: (212) 998 3370
Courant Institute NYU | e-mail: mar...@cs.nyu.edu
...e` la semplicita` che e` difficile a farsi.
...it is simplicity that is difficult to make.
Bertholdt Brecht
Jym Dyer
=o= Jeepers, haven't you heard of GWM? (The "G" is for
"Generic," not "GNU".)
<_Jym_> .----------.
:: The stolen "The Scream" was finally / .-. .-. \
:: found, thanks to an alert Usenetter / | | | | \ HAVE
:: who recognized it from this .sig -> \ `-' `-' _/ YOU
:: Remember this the next time anybody /\ .--. / | SEEN
:: tells you your .sig is too long. :: \ | / / / / ME?
:: :: / | `--' /\ \
::::: j...@remarque.berkeley.edu :::::: / /`-------' \ \
Bernd Meyer
: a positive way? He could probably create a cult around us if he wanted.
: Well, given the size of the Linux community, I'd say that Linus has
: guaranteed employment for the next ten years. He could walk into just
: about any Unix-using house and say "Okay, I'm here for my job", and if
: they didn't have one, they'd *create* one for him. I'm sure that
: Linus has already been asked if he's looking for a job.
: Fame translates into job offers.
I have been thinking about this for quite some time - a way to give back
something to those linux developers out there. The best thing I have
come up with so far is to offer them a place to sleep and a nice meal if
they decide to travel.
So my (very very raw!) suggestion is that we create a list of people who
would be willing to give a bed (or a place to put the sleeping bag on
:-), a dinner and a breakfast to, well, anyone listed in the credits
file - and whoever wishes to be added to that list can send mail asking
for it. Of course, anybody travelling would have to phone first, and
prepare for a number of people being out of town or "out of town" or
....
What does the rest of the linux community think about this? Any takers?
I would offer to organize this myself, but as I don't know where I may
be in 6 weeks time (and the possible locations are about 16,000km apart
:-), this doesn't seem such a good idea...
Bernie
--
"And the band played 'Waltzing Mathilda' / as we stopped to bury our slain;
And we buried ours / and the Turks buried theirs | ..... living in Oz ....
And it started all over again" |
(The Pogues, "Waltzing Matilda", orig by Eric Bogle, "And the band played WM")
Gary Merinstein
>Russell Nelson (nel...@crynwr.crynwr.com) wrote:
>: a positive way? He could probably create a cult around us if he wanted.
>: Well, given the size of the Linux community, I'd say that Linus has
>: guaranteed employment for the next ten years. He could walk into just
>: about any Unix-using house and say "Okay, I'm here for my job", and if
>: they didn't have one, they'd *create* one for him. I'm sure that
>: Linus has already been asked if he's looking for a job.
>: Fame translates into job offers.
>I have been thinking about this for quite some time - a way to give back
>something to those linux developers out there. The best thing I have
>come up with so far is to offer them a place to sleep and a nice meal if
>they decide to travel.
>So my (very very raw!) suggestion is that we create a list of people who
>would be willing to give a bed (or a place to put the sleeping bag on
>:-), a dinner and a breakfast to, well, anyone listed in the credits
>file - and whoever wishes to be added to that list can send mail asking
>for it. Of course, anybody travelling would have to phone first, and
>prepare for a number of people being out of town or "out of town" or
>....
>What does the rest of the linux community think about this? Any takers?
>I would offer to organize this myself, but as I don't know where I may
>be in 6 weeks time (and the possible locations are about 16,000km apart
>:-), this doesn't seem such a good idea...
what makes you think my company would let him leave, should he show up? :-)
Bernd Meyer
: > A Lisp-based window system? Is that still happening?
: =o= Jeepers, haven't you heard of GWM? (The "G" is for
: "Generic," not "GNU".)
Yeah, my window manager of choice - but then, the single piece of
software for linux that has given me the worst headache. Somewhere
hidden in its default initialization file is a line that tells it to
suppress xdvi's buttons. It was put there as an example of what can be
done, but it is mentioned nowhere else. I have spent hours trying to
find where the %$%^$^%$&* buttons were, I compiled several versions of
xdvi myself, I went through every single file xdvi referenced. I only
found it when I grepped through my whole harddisk for "xdvi", and
wondered what businnes gwm had with it.
If anybody is considering putting gwm into a linux distribution: Please
do us all a favor and change that line!!
Sven Goldt
the universities and he gets shares from several publications
like the german linux book.
--
*****************************************************************************
* # THE MOST IMPORTANT FINANCIAL QUESTION IS: Where is the money ? # *
*****************************************************************************
Marco Antoniotti
From: umi...@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Bernd Meyer)
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Followup-To: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Date: 21 May 1994 22:27:27 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au
X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL1]
Xref: slinky.cs.nyu.edu comp.os.linux.misc:16733 gnu.misc.discuss:5894
Jym Dyer (j...@remarque.berkeley.edu) wrote:
: > A Lisp-based window system? Is that still happening?
: =o= Jeepers, haven't you heard of GWM? (The "G" is for
: "Generic," not "GNU".)
Yeah, my window manager of choice - but then, the single piece of
software for linux that has given me the worst headache. Somewhere
...
Thanks. I do not know what GWM is, but, from what I gather from the
previous postings, it is *only* a Window Manager. I suppose you still
have to write your applications using a C (or C++, at best) library
(Motif, OpenLook or Athena).
That is not the problem addressed by the (Common) Lisp Community.
Happy Lisping
Marcus Daniels
Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: GNU Manifesto and Lisp window system was Re: linux unethical ?
References: <2q55la$q...@winx03.informatik.uni-wuerzburg.de> <2q5u73$q...@galaxy.ucr.edu>
<2rc4hq$c...@harbinger.cc.monash.edu.au>
<JANSSEN.94...@holmes.PARC.Xerox.Com>
Distribution:
--text follows this line--
Andrew> A Lisp-based window system? Is that still happening?
Other than X+CLX, CLUE, CLIO, XIT, Garnet (!!), etc. ?!
[yes, and of course the wonderful GWM Window manager]
>>>>> "Bill" == Bill Janssen <jan...@holmes.PARC.Xerox.Com> writes:
In article <JANSSEN.94...@holmes.PARC.Xerox.Com> jan...@holmes.PARC.Xerox.Com (Bill Janssen) writes:
Bill> You mean, aside from GNU Emacs?
I wonder how many Emacs functions could be easily ported to run
(asyncronously) on external ELISP interpreters. (GNUS?)
[Evidently, Bill is being a bit coy]
Inter-Language-Unification would be dandy for a multithreaded
persistent object store GUI workspace thingy.
ILU will also make it much easier to use LISP, and LISP GUI software like
Garnet, CLIO/XIT, etc. in the `real world'.