(edited to add a link) this oxymoron of charging for something that they claim should be free
If you do a bit of research on this, you'll find that this isn't an oxymoron, it is a definitional dissonance. RMS is famous for his quote that one should think about "free speech, not free beer".
In this he is pointing to the intangible, infinitely replicatable nature of software and source code as being similar to that of speech, the obviousness that one should be able to repeat what they heard, and the fact that the repetition of words is likely to increase rather than diminish their value. Surely this will be understood by most SI readers given the frequency with which text, pulled from one web publication or another, is pasted into SI, copyrights be damned.
This is contrasted against the the concept of "free beer", where if someone gives beer away for free, all that one is left with is a bunch of drunks and a pile of virtually valueless, empty bottles. RMS's philosophy (and I'm no RMS disciple, I'm just trying to explain the ideas) explicitly recognizes the intrinsic value and marginal costs associated with tangible objects and the obviousness with which the creation and distribution thereof should be compensated. Speech should be free, beer should cost money. Source code and binaries should be free, boxes containing printed documents and polycarbonate platters should cost money. Also, RMS will allow (grudgingly :-) that people should be able to charge for their time, and thus support contracts and such should cost money.
Again, the point here is that what you identify as an "oxymoron" may just be a misunderstanding of what is being sold, and what it is claimed should be free. Let me know if you still don't understand this.
Or, you can go to the horse's mouth: fsf.org
The fine print on their software license outraged some Linux fans
Here's what outraged the "Linux Fans": Corel released a "beta" of their Linux product for limited distribution. While this is rarely done today in the free software community, especially at the full-distribution level (although RedHat used to do it and got so much flack for it they changed that policy and now publish their "Rawhide" distribution on their ftp site; Rawhide always contains the latest version of everything, and new releases of RedHat Linux are typically just snapshots of Rawhide that get separated from the development stream and get subjected to a greater level of integration testing), most open-source advocates will accept that one should be able to provide early releases of software to a small groups of people before you send it off to the vast horde. Not that most of these people think that such a technique is optimal, just that they accept that one should be able to do it.
Corel's situation was a little tricky. They had written some proprietary stuff -- and some non-proprietary stuff -- for this distribution, and they wanted to get some testing done on that. However, the stuff that they wrote couldn't be tested in any real sense without all the other open-source packages that make up the distribution. So they just released the entire distribution under a restrictive license for testing.
The problem with this was that, by doing so, they were in effect redistributing copyrighted works under terms and conditions that were at odds with the terms and conditions under which they had obtained those works. And the people who owned those copyrights, along with defenders of the people who owned those copyrights, had a cow. As would you, as would Microsoft, as would anyone, I have no doubt, in that situation.
In the end, Corel quickly clarified their position, made it clear that they had no intention of the license applying to the included packages, changed the wording on the document, and most people calmed down and went home. (I'm sure there are still a few zealots out there ranting against Corel, but what can you do?)
Surely there is a lesson in all of this, but I'm not sure that it's the one that the BW story offers. I think that the lesson is that companies that had previously been able to do whatever the hell they wanted will, if they want to start using open-source software, actually have to start reading and abiding by the terms of the other people's licenses.
He sometimes dresses in biblical robes and a halo and calls himself 'St. IGNUscious'
You may find this enjoyable: fsf.org
The "halo" is a platter from an old removable magnetic disk pack.
the GNU operating system, which got the name Linux after programmer Linus Torvalds took charge
Oh Lord, would RMS have a cow if he saw that. I won't try to explain, but you can have a look at this if you want to understand why: fsf.org
The group's penguin mascot may look cute, but this is a fractious culture with byzantine rules--many of them unwritten.
Then again, some are written. As for the "cuteness" of the penguin, here's Linus' original mandate for a Linux logo; you may find it somewhat enlightening:
uwsg.indiana.edu
FWIW,
--Bob |
