On Tue, May 23, 2000 at 01:06:25PM +1000, Rick Welykochy wrote:
> On Tue, 23 May 2000, Ian McKellar wrote:
>
> > This was one of the worst written essays I've ever seen.
>
> Why? Because you disgree with it? Or is it badly written English?
> The former does not make for a bad essay. It makes for a
> disagreeable essay.
Its just not structured too well - he rambles and contradicts himself.
The fact that I disagree with him just makes me more critical :-)
>
> I agree with Meyer on
>
> (*) quality - free/open does *not* imply quality, and there are
> tonnes of poorly-written freeware out there [actually, methinks
> the "Art of Computer Programming" got lost somewhere in the
> mid 80's, when universities worldwide were rationalised into
> market-driven machines and flakey tech colleges started churning
> out programmers with 6 months training ;-]
I agree with that too, but on thing I violently object to is the fact that
he doesn't make a distinction between freeware (free beer) and free
software (free speech).
>
> (*) "cargo cult mentality", i.e. single proponent extremist views
> being promulgated by the likes of Stallman and the advocates
> of slashdot.org can lead to lack of clarity and downright
> wrong calls of judgement
Stallman doesn't have extremist views on software. Many people don't
agree with his views, but that doesn't make his views extremist. He just
wants some of the rights we take for granted to be extended to cover the
use and ownership of software. I don't see anything extremist about free
speech or freedom of the press, and the principles behind free software
aren't very far removed from these. The idea (as far as I interpret it)
is that the users of software should have the right to modify and extend
the software they use, and be able to share those modifications with their
peers.
>
> > The author just
> > doesn't get where Stallman is comming from. Meyer says:
> > "The GNU and FSF view is that it is OK to sell anything except software."
> > http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html clearly explains that charging
> > a price for software is okay. Its /freedom/ that its all about - a point
> > that Meyer completely misses with his definition of free software:
> [SNIP]
> > * Can be used for commercial as well as not-for-profit development, even
> > by people who have not paid for it. (There may be some restrictions on
> > commercial uses, for example the requirement that additions to the free
> > software be free too.)
>
> "commercial as well as not-for-profit development" is that freedom
If I download the source code to Sun's Java implementation under their
`Community Source License' I am not entitled to distribute modified
versions of it. This is adversely affecting my freedom - and it has quite
tangible consequences. Palm Computing ported the Sun Java Virtual Machine
to the PalmPilot, but the can't release the source. Due to limitations in
their port (which could be trivilly remedied if the source was available)
its not possible to run a Java compiler on the PalmPilot. The Sun
Community Source License is not a Free Software license by the FSF's
definition, but Meyer insists on treating these sorts of licenses as
equivalent to strong copylefts like the GPL.
>
> Meyer loses his own argument when he pontificates
> at the beginning about not judging the quality of a movement
> by the quality of its progenators and supporters, then later goes
> on a character assassination rampage comdemning Eric Raymond for
> supporting freer gun legislation.
>
This is the point where Meyer loses most of his credibility.
Ian
--
Ian McKellar | Email: yakk(a)yakk.net | Web: http://www.yakk.net/
Area: +61 (8) | Home: 9389 9152 | Fax/Voice: 9260 2903 | Work: 9384 4700
--
SLUG - Sydney Linux Users Group Mailing List - http://www.slug.org.au
To unsubscribe send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with
unsubscribe in the text
