[LUAU] the term "open source" is dead, says Eben Moglen

[Jim Thompson]

On Nov 24, 2006, at 11:40 PM, Jimen Ching wrote:

> On Fri, 24 Nov 2006, Jim Thompson wrote:
>> In order for society to function, we must all express a basic  
>> level of caring for, and empathizing with, our fellow human beings  
>> (as well as
>> other life forms on this planet, and, indeed, the planet itself.)
>
> Gee, who's imposing their believe on whom now?

I take it you disagree.

>> Software should be Free (as in Freedom) is a radical idea, as it  
>> works against the accepted norm of being able to charge (again and  
>> again and again) for the product of one's labors.
>
> Ugh, you need to study your computer history a little more.  As far  
> as I know, free software predated proprietary software.  When  
> computers were first created, software was shared freely by the  
> first geeks that used those devices.  The idea of charging for  
> software came way after there was an established community of free  
> software developers.  Why do you think RMS believes that sharing  
> software was natural?  People at MIT has always shared software.   
> The idea of proprietary software was the radical idea. At least  
> back then.

I'm sure I know the history of Project GNU (and the FSF) at least as  
well as you do.

It is expressly *NOT* true that all software was originally Free  
Software.   Much of it was, to be true, but DEC charged for software,  
as did Data General and CDC.

rms believes that sharing software is best for society, not that it  
was originally all free.  Witness:

>> 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.  I cannot in good
>> conscience sign a nondisclosure agreement or a software license
>> agreement.
>>
>> So that I can continue to use computers without violating my  
>> principles,
>> 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.


reference: http://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html

rms will be here in January, you can ask him yourself.

>> It may well be, however, that it is better for *society* (as a whole)
>> for software to be shared.   In our society, the author of the  
>> software
>> gets to make a choice.
>>
>> should we not honor that choice?
>
> Didn't you already answered this question from the previous post?   
> You know, "your rights shouldn't trample on mines..."

What rights do you have to something I make, other than those that I  
give to you?

>> course, if they go out of business, you may wish you could  
>> maintain the software they sold you...
>
> Or more likely; you wish you could pay someone else to maintain  
> that software which your livelyhood now depends.  Oh great, now I'm  
> getting dramatic.  ;)

I'm certainly going to pay >someone< (perhaps myself) to maintain  
it.   Who gets paid is secondary to the ability to have the software  
maintained.

I don't understand why thats dramatic.

I also don't understand why my "livelyhood" depends on the software  
in-question.  It may be a game I enjoy.

jim