Archive of UserLand's first discussion group, started October 5, 1998.
Re: What free software means to me
Author: Mark A. Hershberger Posted: 8/20/2000; 10:15:05 PM Topic: A History of "Open Source" Msg #: 19864 (In response to 19862) Prev/Next: 19863 / 19865
I read Eric's post to mean that developers should be able to choose between "giving away" or charging for any particular piece of software that they write.I read it the same way.
And I rather thought that the unethical people of open source were the ones who claim that GPL is the *only* right way to release software.
Those people are unethical. If what I said sounded that way, I appologize. You should have control over what you produce, and I have no business telling you what to do with it. If you don't feel the need to release source for your software, then don't. I do feel that "need", so I release my minor tidbits for others to use. I'm quite glad just to get a little note saying "Oh, this is so cool!"
I'd be really surprised to find that someone as rational as Dave was saying it's unethical to use free software without writing free software in return.
He didn't (that I recall). One thing he said was "Our users will be reminded that if you love someone else's creativity, you must support it, in meaningful ways." And "When you see something cool-but-free coming from UserLand, think about money, and the gift you're getting. You're not paying for it, but you're getting something that cost money to make."
It is these statements that I'm refering to. I can empathize with this.
If you give it away for free, doesn't that mean you don't expect anything in return?
If I GPL a piece of software, my primary intent is not to provide it to you at no charge. That may be some people's intent, but it isn't mine. If all I want to do is provide you with software at no cost, I'll put it in the public domain.
By putting it under the GPL, I'm saying "Here's something I've done and I hope you can use. I care very much about this and don't want to lose it. Please enjoy it and make what you can of it, but share what you make."
So, by GPLing it, I'm saying I care a whole lot about the software and I'm willing to let others have it and contribute to it and help me mold it in many ways. But I don't want them to take advantage of me. That is what I'm saying, but it's probably totally different than what rms is saying.
If you really felt that your efforts should be repaid with like efforts, why not stipulate that in the license.
I think the GPL does a good job of approximating this stipulation. If I released an end-user piece of software under the GPL (unlikely, since I don't do end user software), I'd want non-programmers to feel free using it without feeling guilty about not being able to code up some masterpiece. However, if a programmer comes along and sees what I've done, I'd like him to contribute back. The GPL handles both of these situations in a way I feel good about.
In either case, I'd expect the person to recognise the effort that I put forth and realize that software doesn't just pop effortlessly into being. I'm selfish that way. I want to be recognised.
Mark.
This page was archived on 6/13/2001; 4:56:08 PM.
© Copyright 1998-2001 UserLand Software, Inc.