[vorbis-dev] Re: Richard Stallman responds.

Greg Stark
2000-02-22T21:55:53Z

[Please don't reply to the list, What I say below is not necessary my
beliefs,
nor is this the right place to debate their validity. I'm just trying to
clear
up some misconceptions about intent, not reignite any flamewars about whether
those intentions were worthwhile or misguided.]

Monty <xiphmont@xiph.org> writes:

> > Would you please post something saying that this statement about
> > my views is drastically mistaken:
> >
> >     Actually, RMS openly condemns any commercialization of software.
He also
> >     equates being paid for writing software with prostitution.
> >
> > Neither of these is true.
>
> Well, he was ranting pretty hard when he said those things...  I don't
have
> direct quotes as I didn't write it down.

Fwiw, while I've never heard RMS say anything like this, I have heard
another
FSF programmer draw a similar metaphor about being paid to write **non-free**
software. Not about being paid to write code in general. It seems likely RMS
was talking in that vein about compromising one's principles for money.

Also, earlier someone mischaracterized the goals of the LGPL. The goal was
specifically to encourage development in free libraries by enlarging the user
base of those libraries. For example, glibc would probably attract much less
developer attention and be much less developed than it is if it was only
useful for systems containing only free software. The goal was never to weaken
the GPL restrictions, that was only a means to an end, and viewed as a short
term loss for a potential long term gain.

It is viewed as largely a failure in that light. Few libraries have really
attracted more developer attention than they would have as GPL'd, and much
non-free software such has benefited which may have decided to release as free
software (not necessarily GPL) if that had been necessary to take advantage of
the libraries.


--
greg