[plug] Fwd: [SLUG] Lucky 13 for Linux

[Greg Mildenhall]

On Mon, 12 Apr 1999, skribe wrote:
> On 12-Apr-99 Greg Mildenhall wrote:
> >> It was just made possible because Linus and countless others chose to forgo
> >> their proprietary interests.
> > You make that sound like an unusual choice. Isn't sharing natural? 
> Can I borrow your car this weekend?  How about your house?  Your woman? 
Of course not. If you have them, I can't have them. Software is completely
different for the very simple reason that we can both use it at the same
time.

> Sharing is far from natural.  It takes a level of maturity from both parties
> not to mention trust and respect.
Only when it involves detriment to the sharing party.

> How many people here always pay for the shareware that they use?
How many people here use shareware? :)
I don't see any benefits to the author or the user from shareware. (as
opposed to free software)
A fair proportion of the free software out there is also shareware - for
instance, the lead Samba author requests (and receives) non-enforced
payments in pizza.

Anyway, getting back to the point, apying for shareware is also
completely different to sharing software - once you've sent your money,
you can't use it anymore.

> The human creature is naturally avaricious and it is only their environment
> (social, psychological and physical) that encourages them to share.
Well, I'd say 99% of us are conditioned by our environment to share
automatically when it won't cost us anything to do so.

> > There are certain benefits a program can only derive from being free in a
> > FSF sense, (see "The Cathedral and the Bazaar")
> > the freeness is a major point in favour of the free software which the
> > closed software vendor can never match.
> Oh, you've really bought the party line haven't you? =)  
ROFL. Yep, I'm a died-in-the-wool Stallmanite.
Mainly because he seems to be the only one ho has thought through the
issues. Everyone else seems to start from the status quo and decide how to
deal with it. RMS actually thinks in terms of how things _should_ be, and
has done an awful lot towards making it that way.

> What's next? All literature should be free?
Well, what about project Gutenburg? It costs so little to distribute
literature electronically, it seems a shame not to do so. Again, though, 
in the absence of restrictions on use of the literature, we would have to
find more equitable ways of rewarding the author.

> I certainly know some works of literature that could use the help of
> 10,000+ writers working on them =). 
Well, we all know about the literary genius possessed by an infinite
number of monkeys. :)

-Greg